Homecoming The Amazing Spider-Man 3 General Discussion - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are lots of motivations that don't involve Spider-Man.
Power.
Fame.
World domination,
Adulation.

Right on. How about revenge? Works like a charm in Tarantino movies, Korean revenge films, etc. You can give them lots of motivations that make for an exciting story without turning them into heroes. You follow their story but it doesn't mean they're permanently sympathetic or that they're ruined as villains for later Spidey films. O-Ren Ishii from Kill Bill comes to mind.

The hook isn't that they're Spider-Man villains, just that they're villains. They're bad people with superpowers. Cool premise.
 
TASM_Peter_promo.jpg

^^This Peter

the-amazing-spider-man-2-new-details-on-spideys-suit.jpg

^^ This Spidey

:grin:

Agreed. :)
 
Once again Andrew proves how awesome he is! He seems so true and honest. I think this also proves once again that the producers might be the biggest problem here (not saying Webb isn't to blame, though).

And wow, Andrew is SO true in those last sentences. Posters on boards such as these in general need to learn how to give constructive criticism (which also opens up for more interesting discussions) instead of simply bashing with no discussion value.

Also, I generally admire how articulate and intelligent the guy is. Those were some heavy topics he was addressing in the beginning of the interview, but he discussed them brilliantly.

It seems as though he's gaining popularity, too. Multiple films in the works, including one where he's co-starring with Liam Neeson? :up:

Even though the movie might not have done as well as most of us thought it would, it's great to see him get the attention he deserves.
 
Well I've watched TASM 2 the fourth time, and I definitely see some problems. :/

Guys why does Sony want to copy Marvel/WB/Fox? :cmad:
 
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


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.

Andrew wants constructive criticism?

Here's all that was good about TASM2:

Andrew's performance was better then his performance in TASM1
Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy
Sally Fields as Aunt May
The chemistry between Andrew and Emma

Everything else sucked and was terrible.

10527641_310010249169016_3282681643957110330_n.jpg
 
Andrew wants constructive criticism?

Here's all that was good about TASM2:

Andrew's performance was better then his performance in TASM1
Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy
Sally Fields as Aunt May
The chemistry between Andrew and Peter

Everything else sucked and was terrible.

10527641_310010249169016_3282681643957110330_n.jpg

You said that a few couple of times already.
 
I personally don't see how anyone can say his performance was better in TASM2 then in TASM

He was very good in both
 
In TASM1 he was Shiaing too much and mumbling.

Don't recall that in TASM2.
 
Yes character development. Your character clearly develops when he no longer is Shiaing. Because that's how you write character development. That's how you want characters to develop.

769602.gif
 
Look we finally have new stuff to talk about so let's each have our own personal opinion and move on
 
How is that character development though? It's like saying Batman had character development because we saw him strikes from the shadows less in The Dark Knight then he did in Batman Begins.
 
How is that character development though? It's like saying Batman had character development because we saw him strikes from the shadows less in The Dark Knight then he did in Batman Begins.

:dry:

Forget what I said.
 
How is that character development though? It's like saying Batman had character development because we saw him strikes from the shadows less in The Dark Knight then he did in Batman Begins.

I have no idea what you are talking about at all, that's a very weird anolagy in itself

But don't explain it because I really don't care enough
 
Andrew wants constructive criticism?

Here's all that was good about TASM2:

Andrew's performance was better then his performance in TASM1
Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy
Sally Fields as Aunt May
The chemistry between Andrew and Emma

Everything else sucked and was terrible.

10527641_310010249169016_3282681643957110330_n.jpg

That's clearly not constructive criticism.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about at all, that's a very weird anolagy in itself

But don't explain it because I really don't care enough

That's because he's bringing up Batman out of the blue.
 
Yes character development. Your character clearly develops when he no longer is Shiaing. Because that's how you write character development. That's how you want characters to develop.

Because that's the only progression made,right?

Gimme me a break.
 
TASM2 developed its characters fine. It's the story that was a mess, imo.
 
How is that character development though? It's like saying Batman had character development because we saw him strikes from the shadows less in The Dark Knight then he did in Batman Begins.

Peter studdered more in TASM1 because he doesn´t have confidence or anyone who can really talk with, when he meets Gwen he starts to do it less because he is getting more confident, that´s why he does it less towards the end of TASM1
 
Oh my.

People complain about Peter being too cool, and when he actually does mumble and such, it's bad, apparently.

I'm impressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,307
Messages
22,082,965
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"