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

[The Joker]

True. BB was never an unmemorable film. I hope as time goes on it gets more of the attention it deserves. Anywho, I feel like I've derailed this thread enough....umm, how bout that TASM2 ay?

I know your opinions on Raimi's movies inside out from talking to you over the years, but I don't think I've ever heard your thoughts on the TASM ones.

Also are you pleased we're getting a reboot with Marvel?

 

[Lantern Venom]

Disagreed. Gwen Stacy death not make ASM2 memorable movie. Only Spider-Man fans would know how important death of her is but for public they not know. Like Elektra killed in Daredevil but that not help make it memorable lol. It still forgettable movie.
.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with comics should know about Gwen Stacy's death. That's one of the landmark events that ushered in the Bronze Age. Even people who haven't regularly read comics should know about that because it's permeated pop culture beyond Spidey's pages. Moreover, if anyone didn't realize how shocking it was to see Spidey unable to save his girlfriend (based on test audience reactions, they did), then that person(s) is not very perceptive.

I also completely disagree about Daredevil. It's a perfect example of how being part of a larger mythos keeps these films from being forgettable. Audiences and critics were divided in '03 on Daredevil, but now it's riding the wave of interest which has been initiated by the Netflix series and Affleck's return to a super hero role.

 

[Batsfan1]

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with comics should know about Gwen Stacy's death. That's one of the landmark events that ushered in the Bronze Age. Even people who haven't regularly read comics should know about that because it's permeated pop culture beyond Spidey's pages. Moreover, if anyone didn't realize how shocking it was to see Spidey unable to save his girlfriend (based on test audience reactions, they did), then that person(s) is not very perceptive.

It's that in the comics. The movie doesn't really translate it.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[UltimateWebhead]

It's that in the comics. The movie doesn't really translate it.

I would agree. Too much foreshadowing and it failed to capture the idea that this was indeed Peter's fault or at least would appear it's his fault. Peter in ASM2 does feel awful and guilty for what happened but there's no denying that the blame for Gwen's death was a result of her own actions. She willingly put herself in harms way. I don't have an issue with her doing so...she was a strong-willed character in these movies from the beginning...kinda reminds me of MJ. But she knew the risks and took it anyway. The only saddening thing about Gwen's death in ASM2 was that it robbed the franchise of its most remarkable piece in Emma Stone (though I suppose it matters little since the franchise is now dead). I still enjoy Garfield's take but Emma was very much the bright spot. I really think the filmmakers missed the mark when they decided to approach writing the film starting with the idea that Gwen would die and work backwards from that point.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with comics should know about Gwen Stacy's death. That's one of the landmark events that ushered in the Bronze Age. Even people who haven't regularly read comics should know about that because it's permeated pop culture beyond Spidey's pages. Moreover, if anyone didn't realize how shocking it was to see Spidey unable to save his girlfriend (based on test audience reactions, they did), then that person(s) is not very perceptive.

If Gwen's death is as ubiquitous in pop culture as you claim it to be, then why were people so shocked to see her death? You are contradicting yourself. Furthermore, the whole death thing was blatantly telegraphed throughout the whole movie, so anyone still not seeing it coming are not very bright.

But all of this is besides the point. Nobody talks about Gwen's death as if it's a landmark moment. If ASM 2 is brought up, it's usually about how much of a let down it's is. Nobody says, 'remember that amazing Gwen death scene?'.

 

[Lantern Venom]

If Gwen's death is as ubiquitous in pop culture as you claim it to be, then why were people so shocked to see her death? You are contradicting yourself'.

Not at all. Film adaptations pick and choose what they will adapt, so I wouldn't have been stunned to see the (bad) decision of Gwen going into a coma from which she awoke or some other happy ending. Even though I own the story and I've seen it discussed in numerous documentaries on comics/Spidey, seeing Stone hit the ground accompanied by that sickening "CRACK" was still emotionally jarring. I'm sure that I wasn't the only person in audiences across the globe who was wondering if TASM2 was actually going to go through with such a controversial storyline.

 

[Erzengel]

Maybe because I knew what was going to happen and the fact that TASM2 wasn't stellar at all, but I was more moved by Groot's goodbye in GOTG than I was with that scene.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's mid speech explosion is more talked about. LOL.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with comics should know about Gwen Stacy's death. That's one of the landmark events that ushered in the Bronze Age. Even people who haven't regularly read comics should know about that because it's permeated pop culture beyond Spidey's pages. Moreover, if anyone didn't realize how shocking it was to see Spidey unable to save his girlfriend (based on test audience reactions, they did), then that person(s) is not very perceptive.

I also completely disagree about Daredevil. It's a perfect example of how being part of a larger mythos keeps these films from being forgettable. Audiences and critics were divided in '03 on Daredevil, but now it's riding the wave of interest which has been initiated by the Netflix series and Affleck's return to a super hero role.

Disagreed. That is comics fans that would only know about Gwen death. Never been done in any TV show or anything. It not landmark for normal audiences. ASM 2 also do very bad job of Gwen's death. They get everything wrong.

Daredevil show not have anything to do with interest in Daredevil movie that movie was 12 years ago lol and it not big favorite with fans and movie audience people. Daredevil show is loved because it is great show and it have nothing to do with movie or Ben Affleck being in Batman and Superman film.

It's that in the comics. The movie doesn't really translate it.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I would agree. Too much foreshadowing and it failed to capture the idea that this was indeed Peter's fault or at least would appear it's his fault. Peter in ASM2 does feel awful and guilty for what happened but there's no denying that the blame for Gwen's death was a result of her own actions. She willingly put herself in harms way. I don't have an issue with her doing so...she was a strong-willed character in these movies from the beginning...kinda reminds me of MJ. But she knew the risks and took it anyway. The only saddening thing about Gwen's death in ASM2 was that it robbed the franchise of its most remarkable piece in Emma Stone (though I suppose it matters little since the franchise is now dead). I still enjoy Garfield's take but Emma was very much the bright spot. I really think the filmmakers missed the mark when they decided to approach writing the film starting with the idea that Gwen would die and work backwards from that point.

If Gwen's death is as ubiquitous in pop culture as you claim it to be, then why were people so shocked to see her death? You are contradicting yourself. Furthermore, the whole death thing was blatantly telegraphed throughout the whole movie, so anyone still not seeing it coming are not very bright.

But all of this is besides the point. Nobody talks about Gwen's death as if it's a landmark moment. If ASM 2 is brought up, it's usually about how much of a let down it's is. Nobody says, 'remember that amazing Gwen death scene?'.

Maybe because I knew what was going to happen and the fact that TASM2 wasn't stellar at all, but I was more moved by Groot's goodbye in GOTG than I was with that scene.

Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's mid speech explosion is more talked about. LOL.

Agreed with all of those posts.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Disagreed. That is comics fans that would only know about Gwen death. Never been done in any TV show or anything. It not landmark for normal audiences. ASM 2 also do very bad job of Gwen's death. They get everything wrong.

Daredevil show not have anything to do with interest in Daredevil movie that movie was 12 years ago lol.

It's fair to say that TASM2 got the Goblin's motivation wrong since it was rushed, but the basic structure of Gwen's death was the same. The visuals of the clock and Stone's acting were outstanding as well.

While the Daredevil show isn't connected with the movie, they are both part of the same mythos. When Captain America: TFA, came out, I saw the Captain America 1990 version (a movie that makes even Catwoman look like high art) in stores for the first time in decades. Not surprisingly, WB re-released the Flash 1990 TV show last year before to the premiere of the new series. Prior adaptations don't have to share the continuity as long as they have the name recognition with the general population.

 

[Overman27pj]

Just watched this for the second time, after being disappointed in theaters. This movie is awful.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

It's fair to say that TASM2 got the Goblin's motivation wrong since it was rushed, but the basic structure of Gwen's death was the same. The visuals of the clock and Stone's acting were outstanding as well.

While the Daredevil show isn't connected with the movie, they are both part of the same mythos. When Captain America: TFA, came out, I saw the Captain America 1990 version (a movie that makes even Catwoman look like high art) in stores for the first time in decades. Not surprisingly, WB re-released the Flash 1990 TV show last year before to the premiere of the new series. Prior adaptations don't have to share the continuity as long as they have the name recognition with the general population.

Disagreed. They got structure of Gwen's death wrong. Harry killed her not Norman. He only kill her because she was in wrong place at wrong time. Her own fault she die for being there when Peter try to stop her and it her fault Harry figure out Peter is Spider-Man.

Daredevil and Captain America rerelease have nothing to do with popularity of movies and TV show. They just try and cash in on brand name because they think they are Captain America and Daredevil people buy them. But it not make new interest in those old unpopular ones.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Disagreed. They got structure of Gwen's death wrong. Harry killed her not Norman. He only kill her because she was in wrong place at wrong time. Her own fault she die for being there when Peter try to stop her and it her fault Harry figure out Peter is Spider-Man.

Daredevil and Captain America rerelease have nothing to do with popularity of movies and TV show. They just try and cash in on brand name because they think they are Captain America and Daredevil people buy them. But it not make new interest in those old unpopular ones.

Well, there's hard evidence to the contrary. When the Avengers' hype was in full swing in 2012, Disney aired the old Marvel Super Heroes show despite the poor quality of those 'toons. I also noticed that in the wake of the BvS hype, Netflix uploaded Batman '89. New incarnations always awaken nostalgia.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Well, there's hard evidence to the contrary. When the Avengers' hype was in full swing in 2012, Disney aired the old Marvel Super Heroes show despite the poor quality of those 'toons. I also noticed that in the wake of the BvS hype, Netflix uploaded Batman '89. New incarnations always awaken nostalgia.

Disagreed that not hard evidence of it. That only evidence of people trying to make money off old products with popular brand name on them. It not mean people are buying those old ones or interested in them. You have proof old Marvel superheros cartoon was watched alot when Disney show it?

 

[Infinity9999x]

I know your opinions on Raimi's movies inside out from talking to you over the years, but I don't think I've ever heard your thoughts on the TASM ones.

Also are you pleased we're getting a reboot with Marvel?

Honestly, yeah I am. After TASM, I had hope that they might be able to move in a new direction and keep things fresh. The main thing limiting that film was their desire to try and be different for the sake of being different. But at the heart of it, I enjoyed Emma and Andrew. As a film, it felt quite rushed and pel-mel, but it wasn't awful.

TASM2 showed me that Sony had no grasp of what makes Spider-man relatable, and all their talk of a "Spider-world" and all that. It's not about trying to make Spidey the next Avengers, it should be about how he's the most relatable superhero out there. He's the only hero we see struggle to pay rent, get a job, go on dates etc.

None of the films ever hit my idea of a perfect Spidey. Ideally, something like SSM is pretty much exactly what I want. From what I've been hearing about this new Spider-man, it seems a step in the right direction. Though as long as we Spidey stay a "film-only" character, I don't think we'll ever see him done true justice in live-action. I think Spidey is a character that works best in a Tv-show format. Something like a Netflix series would work great for him, because it gives us time to build his world, give characterization to his high school friends (something SSM did great), and watch him deal with the every day challenges of life while trying to be a hero. In a film, due to limited time, we only get to see pieces of these aspects, and to me, that's a shame, because it's what makes the character truly great imo.

EDIT: As for my overall feeling of TASM as a whole...it's pretty much what I said above. I liked Emma and Andrew. They both had great chemistry together, and their love story was written very well. I liked that they started to bring more of the wise cracking humor to Spider-man...but overall, their films just weren't put together well. The first TASM is average. It's got some good moments, but it suffers from retelling a story that didn't need to be retold, and forcing in the "different" aspects simply to try and be different. TASM2 isn't very good. I don't think it's god-awful, or anywhere near the bottom of the barrell superhero film wise (it's not Steel, the 90s F4, or this past F4, or Supergirl etc). I'd say it's about SM3 level...maybe slightly better for me. A move that, structure wise, isn't very good, but it has a small saving grace in that some performances are good. In TASM2 Emma and Andrew are good. In SM3, Sandman and Harry were good.

But overall, it was a series that will be remembered only for it's leads and it's wasted potential. It was ruined because Sony was looking to build an empire off Spidey instead of tell a good story.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Disagreed that not hard evidence of it. That only evidence of people trying to make money off old products with popular brand name on them. It not mean people are buying those old ones or interested in them. You have proof old Marvel superheros cartoon was watched alot when Disney show it?

Why do you think they do that? The answer is simple: there's a market for it. Disney wouldn't have bothered to air Marvel Superheroes if there wasn't renewed interest in everything Marvel due to the success of the MCU.

Spider-man '67 was a study in bad writing and even worse production values. So why was it put on DVD in 2004? That's also a simple answer: it's Spider-man. There is simply no logic in saying that a blockbuster movie starring the same character would somehow be forgotten in 2 years time. The truth is that our great grandchildren will be debating Maguire vs. Garfield vs. Holland.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Why do you think they do that? The answer is simple: there's a market for it. Disney wouldn't have bothered to air Marvel Superheroes if there wasn't renewed interest in everything Marvel due to the success of the MCU.

Spider-man '67 was a study in bad writing and even worse production values. So why was it put on DVD in 2004? That's also a simple answer: it's Spider-man. There is simply no logic in saying that a blockbuster movie starring the same character would somehow be forgotten in 2 years time. The truth is that our great grandchildren will be debating Maguire vs. Garfield vs. Holland.

There is market for Batman but people not going out to buy Joel Schumacher Batman lol. An interest in Marvel not mean every Marvel base movie is popular and wanted. Like Fantastic Four movies. They another example. They put Spider-Man 67 on dvd to try and sell it just because it has Spider-Man. That what studios do they try to make money off anything and it not always work because there not always demand for something because it have popular character in it. That common sense Lantern venom.

 

[Erzengel]

That's like debating who was better Connery, Moore or Dalton.

 

[Daltonio]

That's like debating who was better Connery, Moore or Dalton.

#TeamDalton

 

[Rorschach2012]

I'm still AMAZED with how bad Garfield and these movies were, I really can't wait for MCU Spidey. Best possible thing to ever happen to Spidey I hope Tom Holland kills it

Garfield is a fantastic actor, but he was a horrible Spider-Man.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

How is Garfield a bad Spider-Man? I still don't see it.

 

[The Shape]

He's not.

 

[DX]

But he's an awful Peter Parker.

 

[DX]

Though, it's the fault of the writing (mostly). Thought I should clarify.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

He's not.

That's the way I see it.

But he's an awful Peter Parker.

Nah, he was pretty spot on as a comic adaption of the character, both classic 616 Lee era and Ultimate.