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

[Daltonio]

Great posts Andrew, very well said.

Whoa, I had no idea a debate was still going on for whether TASM2 was good or not...

The debate will go on for centuries.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Once he saw Gwen's speech, I don't think he was so reluctant. He seemed motivated. At the very end of TASM2, I think that Peter is in a much better place than he was at the beginning of the film (because no more guilt, like I've explained).

The storytelling is a problem for me. I feel that the writers wrote themselves into a corner with Captain Stacy and Gwen. Sure, the message of Gwen's speech is actually quite nice ... But I think that it gets lost in the fray considering how guilty Peter was feeling throughout the movie (because of Captain Stacy's last words rather than Gwen's death). If Captain Stacy had not said those words at all, then I think Gwen's death, how Peter dealt with it, and her speech would have made a much better impact on me. With Gwen dead, Peter doesn't have to deal with Captain Stacy haunting him anymore, and he can't feel guilty about Gwen simply because her death was in no way his fault (since the writers made Gwen proactive to a fault, really). One can argue that Harry went towards Gwen once he had a "lightbulb moment" about Spider-Man's identity, but it wouldn't have happened at all if Gwen had not insisted on being there (and, really, I think Harry would have taken Gwen regardless of her association with Peter; Harry was a-ok with hurting multiple people). It's why I feel that the overall handling of her death was contrived, and why I think it loses its punch.

Also, like I said, if a TASM3 had been made, would the movie really make Peter weary about another relationship? If so, then the character learned nothing from Gwen's speech, and the film would be overly redundant, based on what happened in the previous films. Captain Stacy's final words really muck up a lot of things in the narrative of these movies, in my opinion. Peter should have learned about the risk of having loved ones close to you while being a superhero through Gwen's death, not through Captain Stacy's final words.

Then why didn't Peter see Captain Stacy after Gwen's death? He showed up in random spots throughout the movie. Why not after Gwen's death (when it actually would have made most sense)? It's inconsistent.

EDIT: I also think that Captain Stacy's death should have been used as a inspiration for Spider-Man, rather than an instrument of guilt for Peter and Gwen's relationship (it's also painfully obvious, "hammer to the head" foreshadowing that was really not needed). Captain Stacy died heroically, putting himself on the line for Peter. It should have been used as a message of sacrifice, and also a warning of the dangers Peter will face as long as he keeps putting that mask on. That would have linked with Uncle Ben's speech about "moral obligation" extremely well, too (especially since Uncle Ben's voicemail is played near the end of the film). By the end of TASM1 (with the webslinging; a moment in the film that I actually liked), the audience would know that he's in it for the long haul. I think that would have been a much better message than some "broken promises are the best kind" line (a line that created several problems I have with TASM2).

What kind of hope has Spider-Man instilled in the people around him, though? Gwen's dead, he denied Harry of his blood (that scene with Spidey turning Harry down was so unnecessary; Harry would have been better off with Spidey not showing up at all), Spider-Man abandoned his city for five whole months ... What hope, exactly? That hope happens whenever Spidey feels like it? A lot of the themes and ideas in these movies are all over the place, and none of the themes are fleshed out enough. Is the movie about hope? Is it about time? Is it about loss? Is it about guilt? Is it about loneliness (with Electro's character)? The film makes nothing clear about what it wants to say, because everything is glossed over, and everything is a mess. But derpitty derpy durr ... I just "don't get it."

Typically, when someone tells me "You don't get it," then I tend to dismiss the opinion. Just so you know.

Spider-Man mourning for Gwen seemed to be very glossed over, and that takes away so much from such a big story arc (and from such an important character like Gwen). Just because the movie says it's been 5 months, that doesn't mean I believe it or feel the consequences. The movie did not sell me the aftermath of Gwen's death well enough for me to believe that there's an aftermath (because the "mourning stuff" took, like, 2 minutes in the film- very glossed over). The movie shows Captain Stacy haunting Peter throughout the movie ... Then Peter sees nothing after Gwen's death? If the movie was trying to shoehorn in some not-so-subtle "guilt theme," then the movie needed to be consistent about it. Show Captain Stacy; hell, showing Peter having similar visions of Gwen would have at least been something. All I see is that Peter visited the cemetery a lot in some quick montage while being on hiatus as Spider-Man. Before the Rhino, what was happening in New York while Spidey was gone? Did other supervillains attack the city? Did the crime rate go up? Did Peter have visions of Captain Stacy or Gwen? What happened in those 5 months as a result of Gwen dying?! The movie doesn't care to show me, so why should I care?

At the very least, with Spider-Man 3, I can easily say that the movie is about revenge versus forgiveness. I can't say what TASM2 is about, because the movie is so jumbled and messy. Sure, a lot of plotlines (like the Sandman retcon) feel extremely forced, but at least all of it fit into a single running theme.

Agreed so much. Great posts Leenie.

Heck yes, I'm being biased. I never denied that. I expected better for a reboot that apparently "needed" to happen so soon. Instead of fixing previous problems, I think Sony exacerbated them. Plain and simple.

We both have different opinions, and guess what? That's really not a big deal. You like the movies, and I don't. Whoop-de-do. The thing is that you are being needlessly catty towards me (and towards others who share the same opinion). I am simply voicing my distaste for a film series, and the reasons why I have distaste for it. Have I, at any point, said anything bad about the fans of the TASM movies? No, because that's ridiculous.

Also, message boards exist for discussion. If you don't want to read any possible negative opinion about movies you enjoy, then might I suggest you go to a thread that only accepts positive posts? I'm sure they exist, and if they don't, then you can make one.

Agreed. That is why a lot of ASM movie fans banned from here. They get unpleasant when people disagree with them. You would think they be used to that.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Great posts Andrew, very well said. The debate will go on for centuries.

Aye!

 

[Lantern Venom]

Nope that's not how it is. Other superheroes don't just get over deaths either, but they don't spend friggin months doing nothing but moping and mourning like dopey Garfield did.

.

In the movies, we've seen Batman take an 8+ year break due in no small part to the deaths of Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent, Superman leave his responsibilities on earth for 5 years on a quest to find Kryptonians, and Spider-man take an extended break from saving lives so he could play college boy and eat hot dogs.

In the comics, we've seen Spidey hiding out in an apartment haunted by Mary Jane's memories, Batman take a decade break while Gotham descends into chaos, and Hal Jordan get so depressed about his city being destroyed that he let himself become one of the most feared villains in the DC universe. By comparison, a young Spider-man who had already lost his parents and his uncle, soul-searching after the death of his girlfriend looks quite tame in comparison.

 

[Leenie]

In the movies, we've seen Batman take an 8+ year break due in no small part to the deaths of Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent, Superman leave his responsibilities on earth for 5 years on a quest to find Kryptonians, and Spider-man take an extended break from saving lives so he could play college boy and eat hot dogs.

In the comics, we've seen Spidey hiding out in an apartment haunted by Mary Jane's memories, Batman take a decade break while Gotham descends into chaos, and Hal Jordan get so depressed about his city being destroyed that he let himself become one of the most feared villains in the DC universe. By comparison, a young Spider-man who had already lost his parents and his uncle, soul-searching after the death of his girlfriend looks quite tame in comparison.

I don't mind that Spidey took a break for five months. My issue with it is that the film doesn't really show the consequences of him not being around for an extended period of time. All we see is that Peter visits Gwen's grave often, and that he hasn't put on the costume since Gwen's death. I don't get really any insight into Peter Parker's character during that time period other than he's sad. I think the movie needed to show more of what was going on during those five months.

And with The Dark Knight Rises, I am still not really happy about Bruce hibernating for 8 years (because Batman never quits, darn it). However, the movie showed and explained all of the things that had happened during Bruce's time away. The Dark Knight Rises had many plotholes and contrivances to it, but Bruce's time away was not one of those instances IMO.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

In the movies, we've seen Batman take an 8+ year break due in no small part to the deaths of Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent, Superman leave his responsibilities on earth for 5 years on a quest to find Kryptonians, and Spider-man take an extended break from saving lives so he could play college boy and eat hot dogs.

In the comics, we've seen Spidey hiding out in an apartment haunted by Mary Jane's memories, Batman take a decade break while Gotham descends into chaos, and Hal Jordan get so depressed about his city being destroyed that he let himself become one of the most feared villains in the DC universe. By comparison, a young Spider-man who had already lost his parents and his uncle, soul-searching after the death of his girlfriend looks quite tame in comparison.

You can't oversimplify it like that, with TASM 2 you can because it was the movie that oversimplified Peter's grief over Gwen into 1 minute of screentime.

 

[Erzengel]

And with The Dark Knight Rises, I am still not really happy about Bruce hibernating for 8 years (because Batman never quits, darn it). However, the movie showed and explained all of the things that had happened during Bruce's time away. The Dark Knight Rises had many plotholes and contrivances to it, but Bruce's time away was not one of those instances IMO.

Funny, that was such a lesser issue compared to the other stuff that bothered me somewhat especially because in the comics, he's lost sons and still continues on.

The whole 4 month siege or the I saw in your eyes that you were Batman bothered me more.

But ironically, those bothered me less than the poor villains, parent storyline, marginalization of Uncle Ben, making Peter blameless of Gwen's death, etc.

 

[Leenie]

You can't oversimplify it like that, with TASM 2 you can because it was the movie that oversimplified Peter's grief over Gwen into 1 minute of screentime.

Agreed.

That quick hotdog part gave me more insight to Peter's character than anything I saw in TASM2. It demonstrated the consequences of quitting one's responsibilities (you don't want to be a hero anymore? Fine. Enjoy those sirens, bub.). It also explained Peter's current state of mind: That he was in denial about not being able to go back to the way things were prior to getting his powers. And Spider-Man 2 definitely showed those consequences.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I don't mind that Spidey took a break for five months. My issue with it is that the film doesn't really show the consequences of him not being around for an extended period of time. All we see is that Peter visits Gwen's grave often, and that he hasn't put on the costume since Gwen's death. I don't get really any insight into Peter Parker's character during that time period other than he's sad. I think the movie needed to show more of what was going on during those five months.
.

The film had a running time of nearly 2 1/2 hours. Tacking on another 5 minutes of Peter silently reflecting, which was all that he did, really wouldn't have added much. He was simply answering the question of whether or not his alter ego was worth the cost.

You can't oversimplify it like that, with TASM 2 you can because it was the movie that oversimplified Peter's grief over Gwen into 1 minute of screentime.

Sure I can. It was the same basic premise: can Peter Parker co-exist with Spiderman? In SM2, he grew weary of the perception that he was unreliable and self-absorbed. In TASM2, he weighed the personal cost of fighting an unending, ever-escalating one-man war. But those two story points come back to the same place.

 

[Leenie]

The film had a running time of nearly 2 1/2 hours. Tacking on another 5 minutes of Peter silently reflecting, which was all that he did, really wouldn't have added much. He was simply answering the question of whether or not his alter ego was worth the cost.

Then we can forgive Spider-Man 3 for Venom's limited screen time, yes? Black goo, Eddie Brock ... Yeah! Venom. Why add an extra 10 minutes to a movie that's already 2 1/2 hours?

Also, if Peter reflecting about Spider-Man being worth the cost is all that happened during the course of five months, then I'm not out of line with an original point I made: That Peter is better off without Gwen in the picture. He moves on as Spider-Man, more confident about his alter ego's worth than before, and he has nothing to be guilty about (since the movie made that so).

And finally ... It's a good thing that Peter watched Gwen's speech just in time for the Rhino to attack the city. If he hadn't watched it, who knows what the Rhino would have done? Phew, that was a close one.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Agreed.

That quick hotdog part gave me more insight to Peter's character than anything I saw in TASM2. It demonstrated the consequences of quitting one's responsibilities (you don't want to be a hero anymore? Fine. Enjoy those sirens, bub.). It also explained Peter's current state of mind: That he was in denial about not being able to go back to the way things were prior to getting his powers. And Spider-Man 2 definitely showed those consequences.

Yeah that whole montage was great

The film had a running time of nearly 2 1/2 hours. Tacking on another 5 minutes of Peter silently reflecting, which was all that he did, really wouldn't have added much. He was simply answering the question of whether or not his alter ego was worth the cost.

Sure I can. It was the same basic premise: can Peter Parker co-exist with Spiderman? In SM2, he grew weary of the perception that he was unreliable and self-absorbed. In TASM2, he weighed the personal cost of fighting an unending, ever-escalating one-man war. But those two story points come back to the same place.

How is it basic? its the story the film was trying to tell and it can't be oversimplified by saying Peter only wanted to "eat a hotdog" there are more layers to it than that.

Gwen's death had no thematic purpose in the movie, it happened because they wanted a cheap way to please fans and the proof of this is that the film never reflects on anything that you're saying.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Yeah that whole montage was great



How is it basic? its the story the film was trying to tell and it can't be oversimplified by saying Peter only wanted to "eat a hotdog" there are more layers to it than that.

Gwen's death had no thematic purpose in the movie, it happened because they wanted a cheap way to please fans and the proof of this is that the film never reflects on anything that you're saying.

We'll just have to disagree there. It's clear to me that both TASM and TASM 2 were built to that moment.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Then we can forgive Spider-Man 3 for Venom's limited screen time, yes? Black goo, Eddie Brock ... Yeah! Venom. Why add an extra 10 minutes to a movie that's already 2 1/2 hours?
.

VINO had too much screen time as it was. I shudder at the thought of more Blowpher and black flubber with no personality.

 

[Leenie]

VINO had too much screen time as it was. I shudder at the thought of more Blowpher and black flubber with no personality.

Blowpher. Creative.

Eddie Brock had personality in Spider-Man 3: He was a smarmy jackass. I can see why people would hate that personality, though.

So, because you hate Venom (or "VINO," as you call him), then do you think Spider-Man 3 would have fared better without him at all? Because there are several things I could have done without in TASM2 to place focus on other things that could have been more interesting and could have been explored more.

The use of time in a film is an important thing. I think that more time in TASM2 should have focused more on the consequences of Gwen's death (since Gwen is such an important character). I feel that her death was very much glossed over in favor of tacking Rhino at the end of the film. That's why I think the film's ending is abysmal.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Blowpher. Creative.

Eddie Brock had personality in Spider-Man 3: He was a smarmy jackass. I can see why people would hate that personality, though.

So, because you hate Venom (or "VINO," as you call him), then do you think Spider-Man 3 would have fared better without him at all? Because there are several things I could have done without in TASM2 to place focus on other things that could have been more interesting and could have been explored more.

The use of time in a film is an important thing. I think that more time in TASM2 should have focused more on the consequences of Gwen's death (since Gwen is such an important character). I feel that her death was very much glossed over in favor of tacking on the Rhino at the end of the film. That's why I think the film's ending is abysmal.

Well, they call me the official Blowpher Grace Basher of SHH.

And while ol' floppy arms did have a personality in SM3, it resembled nothing of the 616 Eddie Brock, and the symbiote (a character in its own right) was just a moving pile of black snot. So, yes, the movie would have been much better without Venom or without calling a flimsy stock character by the name of "Gwen Stacy".

While I was fine with Gwen's death in TASM2 (the best moment in any Spidey movie since SM2's "go get 'em, Tiger"), you're preaching to the choir about Rhino. That was one of my least favorite things about the film, despite being a fan of both the comic character and Paul Giamatti.

 

[The Joker]

How is it basic? its the story the film was trying to tell and it can't be oversimplified by saying Peter only wanted to "eat a hotdog" there are more layers to it than that.

Gwen's death had no thematic purpose in the movie, it happened because they wanted a cheap way to please fans and the proof of this is that the film never reflects on anything that you're saying.

One of many great failings of that franchise. A lack of thematic purpose. Especially in TASM 2. It was just a clustered jumble of sloppy rushed events.

Agreed.

That quick hotdog part gave me more insight to Peter's character than anything I saw in TASM2. It demonstrated the consequences of quitting one's responsibilities (you don't want to be a hero anymore? Fine. Enjoy those sirens, bub.). It also explained Peter's current state of mind: That he was in denial about not being able to go back to the way things were prior to getting his powers. And Spider-Man 2 definitely showed those consequences.

Hear hear. That's how you show great character insight.

 

[Keehar]

In the movies, we've seen Batman take an 8+ year break due in no small part to the deaths of Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent

Commish Gordon: 'We were in this together and then you were gone'
Batman: 'Batman wasn't needed any more. We won'

Superman leave his responsibilities on earth for 5 years on a quest to find Kryptonians

Superman Returns sucks.

and Spider-man take an extended break from saving lives so he could play college boy and eat hot dogs.

Nope. What you really mean is so he could have himself a good 'ol normal life instead of superhero one that's wrecking his personal life.

In the comics, we've seen Spidey hiding out in an apartment haunted by Mary Jane's memories, Batman take a decade break while Gotham descends into chaos, and Hal Jordan get so depressed about his city being destroyed that he let himself become one of the most feared villains in the DC universe. By comparison, a young Spider-man who had already lost his parents and his uncle, soul-searching after the death of his girlfriend looks quite tame in comparison.

Was Spidey hiding away in brooder ville for months and months when he was having them MJ memories? Bet the answer is nope. DKR is awesome but you know it's like an out of continuity what if sort of story. It's not canon. Hal was under the influence of the yellow emotional entity named Parallax.

Bad examples there Mr. Lantern.

Blowpher. Creative.

Eddie Brock had personality in Spider-Man 3: He was a smarmy jackass. I can see why people would hate that personality, though.

So, because you hate Venom (or "VINO," as you call him), then do you think Spider-Man 3 would have fared better without him at all? Because there are several things I could have done without in TASM2 to place focus on other things that could have been more interesting and could have been explored more.

The use of time in a film is an important thing. I think that more time in TASM2 should have focused more on the consequences of Gwen's death (since Gwen is such an important character). I feel that her death was very much glossed over in favor of tacking Rhino at the end of the film. That's why I think the film's ending is abysmal.

Too right.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Well, they call me the official Blowpher Grace Basher of SHH.

And while ol' floppy arms did have a personality in SM3, it resembled nothing of the 616 Eddie Brock, and the symbiote (a character in its own right) was just a moving pile of black snot. So, yes, the movie would have been much better without Venom or without calling a flimsy stock character by the name of "Gwen Stacy".

While I was fine with Gwen's death in TASM2 (the best moment in any Spidey movie since SM2's "go get 'em, Tiger"), you're preaching to the choir about Rhino. That was one of my least favorite things about the film, despite being a fan of both the comic character and Paul Giamatti.

Spoiler

Gwen was in Spider-Man 3? That clingy girl? Ew.

 

[Keehar]

How is it basic? its the story the film was trying to tell and it can't be oversimplified by saying Peter only wanted to "eat a hotdog" there are more layers to it than that.

Gwen's death had no thematic purpose in the movie, it happened because they wanted a cheap way to please fans and the proof of this is that the film never reflects on anything that you're saying.

Yep. Gwen and her dad's death got bastardized big time.

Be happy that these ASM movies can ruin no more Spidey greatness now. They got cancelled in shame for the lousy flicks they are.

 

[Erzengel]

I like the Bond analogy.

Raimi's was Connery. Webb's is like Dalton. Hopefully the MCU will be like Craig.

 

[Keehar]

Dalton's is way too good to be Webb's. Webb's is the Die Another Day of the franchise.

 

[The Shape]

The failure of TASM2 and the ending of the franchise mainly bothers me because of how Garfield got the short end of the stick. He was great as both Peter and Spidey, and with the right material, he could have given us a truly amazing version of Spider-man.

 

[Leenie]

The failure of TASM2 and the ending of the franchise mainly bothers me because of how Garfield got the short end of the stick. He was great as both Peter and Spidey, and with the right material, he could have given us a truly amazing version of Spider-man.

While I don't care for Andrew Garfield's performance in either movie, I don't place the blame on him. With better material, I think that Garfield could have been excellent. That said, I'm glad he's not going to be in the MCU movies. Personally, I'm all right with the MCU cutting any possible ties/association with the TASM movies. A clean slate is the best way to go, in my opinion.

I think that most of the actors in the TASM movies deserved better (except or maybe Dane DeHaan. Sorry to those who like him, but I think he's just awful).

 

[Leenie]

Spoiler

Gwen was in Spider-Man 3? That clingy girl? Ew.

Sooo ... It's okay for you to reference Spider-Man 3, but not me? Mkay.

PS- I liked Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen in Spider-Man 3. I thought she was cute and likable due to her sunny disposition. I just wish the movie had given her more to do. Adding her into the mix was unnecessary, given the screentime she had. If they needed to have a female character to get MJ jealous over, then it probably should have been Betty Brant (an already established character in the Raimi films). Obviously Gwen was added because "omg she's in the comic books, gotta reference her for the fanboys" ... Much like how Venom was.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I do feel bad for Garfield, but no matter how the first script turned out, I imagine he would have still opted for that mumbly yet cocky version of Parker.

Garfield was playing Spider-Man as the ICONIC character that he is, and not the nuanced person that an actor should be striving for.

I can't say I'll miss him all that much as the franchise will do just fine without him. However, his errors are dwarfed by the mistakes of the people around him.