The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Scene Gwen Stacey Died - Part 2

[DigificWriter]

Wow those spoilers sound really legit.

No, they don't.

Those Spoilers say Feore is playing 'Mr. Smythe', which we know to be false.

 

[Picard Sisko]

No, they don't.

Those Spoilers say Feore is playing 'Mr. Smythe', which we know to be false.

What's weird though is that they mention the wind-mill science project. Did that appear in any of the set photos prior to when these spoilers were posted?

 

[DigificWriter]

^ 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day'.

There very well may be new pieces of accurate info in those supposed Spoilers (such as the windmill science project thing), but the fact that they're unequivocally wrong in terms of who Feore is playing immediately makes them suspect regardless of if they do contain accurate info.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Is it possible that the person who posted the spoilers didn't actually see the film but instead knows someone that did? IDK. Mistaking Colm Feore's character certainly makes the credibility of the poster questionable.

 

[ever tim]

^ 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day'.

There very well may be new pieces of accurate info in those supposed Spoilers (such as the windmill science project thing), but the fact that they're unequivocally wrong in terms of who Feore is playing immediately makes them suspect regardless of if they do contain accurate info.

Dude, you read that line wrong. He states that Feore and Novak are second in command at Oscorp and Smythe respectively.

 

[ever tim]

Mistaking Colm Feore's character certainly makes the credibility of the poster questionable.

Except he didn't.

"Who are Colm Feore and B.J. Novak playing?"

"2nd in Command at Oscorp, and Mr. Smythe, respectively. It was never made clear if BJ was he Smythe elder or junior."

 

[Picard Sisko]

Except he didn't.

"Who are Colm Feore and B.J. Novak playing?"

"2nd in Command at Oscorp, and Mr. Smythe, respectively. It was never made clear if BJ was he Smythe elder or junior."

Oh okay, I see. The wording was a little awkward.

 

[DigificWriter]

@Picard and ever tim:
I said this in the Gen. Discussion thread, but BJ's name isn't mentioned until AFTER the sentence that contains Feore's name and the name 'Mr. Smythe'.

 

[ever tim]

@Picard and ever tim:
I said this in the Gen. Discussion thread, but BJ's name isn't mentioned until AFTER the sentence that contains Feore's name and the name 'Mr. Smythe'.

"Respectively", adverb: separately or individually and in the order already mentioned (used when enumerating two or more items or facts that refer back to a previous statement)

Order already mentioned: Feore and Novak. The previous statement that was being referred back to was the question. I'm a little embarrassed about the fact that I'm even having to break this down.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

Possible that he missed him, or that he was simply not in the cut he saw... I mean, it was a rough cut. It's just the whole windmill science project thing. Who could possibly just guess something like that?

you can't simply guess it. but knowing it exists doesn't mean you have seen the film or impact on any other spoilers. at best it increases the believability of said spoilers.

he could be someone who knows the little kid actor, someone who was on set that day, one of the relatives of the two bullies. there are countless explanations as to why this person could post about a windmill in dec 2013.

as it has been proven that the rhino fight at park avenue does not end the film, via analysis of visual evidence [not a stranger's word], one can be certain that he has not seen the movie. he simply has some solid info.

yurka, who everyone more or less agrees has been disproven, had some solid info re. certain easter eggs, but this did not impact on him having seen the movie when he was wrong about the rhino fight.

if i said in dec 2011 that peter wants to buy some chocolate milk in tasm1, but then also said that dr. connors dies at the end, and then the film came out, people would be right to call me a liar. clearly, i had some info about the former spoiler that was true, but someone who had seen tasm1 would know that connors does not die.

same thing is happening here, except with a windmill and a final scene description.

once again: max and gwen are watching the rhino fight, therefore it can't occur at the end for two very clear reasons.

 

[Picard Sisko]

"as it has been proven that the rhino fight at park avenue does not end the film, via analysis of visual evidence…"

Nothing was proven. The trees and building in the background are similar, but that hardly counts as "proof." If you wanted to make a case in a court, this would be very poor evidence.

 

[Airnick]

"as it has been proven that the rhino fight at park avenue does not end the film, via analysis of visual evidence…"

Nothing was proven. The trees and building in the background are similar, but that hardly counts as "proof." If you wanted to make a case in a court, this would be very poor evidence.

This. Now I'm not saying your wrong RB, I just don't think you proved anything yet.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

"Respectively", adverb: separately or individually and in the order already mentioned (used when enumerating two or more items or facts that refer back to a previous statement)

Order already mentioned: Feore and Novak. The previous statement that was being referred back to was the question. I'm a little embarrassed about the fact that I'm even having to break this down.

in regards to feore and novak, by dec 2013 we knew that the former was menken.

colm as menken then left novak, whose role could now easily be guessed as smythe (when people thought feore was toomes, menken seemed the logical choice for novak)

knowledge of one actor's role thus allowed for an educated guess to be made about the other.

people on here were speculating he was smythe after the colm feore reveal. when marc webb tweeted confirmation, there was little fervour. it was like "cool, now we know". it wasn't a shock, as a lot of ppl had him shortlisted as smythe.

 

[Picard Sisko]

This. Now I'm not saying your wrong RB, I just don't think you proved anything yet.

Exactly. I think RB made some very good observations and I appreciate his speculation about the elevator scene. But those observations hardly count as "proof."

 

[Repulsor Blast]

i have proven it. not unequivocally. but beyond a reasonable doubt? definitely. i would say as close to 100% you can be via analysis of physical evidence before a film releases. between 95% and 99%.

you're only pushing me now that another person has mentioned the rhino fight at the end. it has not changed a thing.

and me saying that i have proved it, has always been a qualified statement. check my earlier posts. i said nothing can be known for sure in this field, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

if i am to take your dismissal of this proof seriously, then that means that you don't believe anything in tasm2 so far via physical evidence. i could use the exact same argument and say spider-man isn't in the movie, because he could be edited out.

i'm done with this though. we obviously have different standards. and this evidence would hold up in court. i hate to cite that i did 4 yrs of law school, but there you go. just know that if i say that there is proof the rhino fight is not at the end, i am not saying it is unequivocal etc.

what's hilarious is if we found a post from nov 2013 that mentioned the windmill and then said the film ended a different way, that would be much more convincing to the doubting thomases of this forum.

as if a stranger's word is more believable than facts and logic derived therefrom...

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I would consider your proof to be unequivocal, but that's just me.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Sorry, but nothing has been proven. I'd say you made some very good observations though, and I think your theory about the elevator scene could be true.

 

[Airnick]

Well RB your seeing the movie before any of us, so I'm excited to read your review. But I'm gonna laugh if you say the manhole shot is at the end of the film lol.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

^ I would consider your proof to be unequivocal, but that's just me.

it's all about different standards. you could argue it is unequivocal, but technically it isn't in the sense that the film is not out yet.

literally nothing is unequivocal from this more stringent standard of proof. they could edit out spider-man and replace him with a giant monkey. people who say that they have proven spider-man is in the film because of visuals in the trailers could be rebutted with "you haven't proven it still", and technically they are right; anything can change.

i don't subscribe to such a pedantic and overly technical frame of mind. the world is full of things we can't know for certain, but in order to navigate it successfully, we have to come to conclusions based on evidence.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

we aren't even in disagreement. i have just used the word proof erroneously for those who have a stricter standard. it's a valid standard. not one that i personally agree with. but valid all the same.

@airnick, il laugh too. sometimes, that's all you can do. i'll be able to hang my head high, as i didn't simply dismiss yurka, i formulated an educated rebuttal.

 

[Figs]

i'll be able to hang my head high, as i didn't simply dismiss yurka, i formulated an educated rebuttal.

Hahaha. I recall you being fairly aggressive and negative towards him when you were saying he was full of ****...before you actually started formulating "an educated rebuttal".

 

[JOE]

@ Repulsor Blast

No matter how logical your reasoning, and no matter how high your 90-95% assurance is... There's still the possibility Yurka was right. So until the movie comes out there really isn't any point trying to convince people why you're right and he's a phoney. Save that for when the movie is released and you can back up everything you're saying with the actual movie. You'll still be able to reference all the posts you've made this week and give the, "I told you so" to Yurka lol. Not saying I don't believe you, it's just constant back and fourth until someone inevitably sees the film in mid April and can confirm everything for us.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

Hahaha. I recall you being fairly aggressive and negative towards him when you were saying he was full of ****...before you actually started formulating "an educated rebuttal".

well, check again. i gave him the benefit of the doubt. being aggressive was in relation to explaining why the fight being at the end was a bad idea, and much less to do with why it won't happen.

and an educated rebuttal can be aggressive, or civil, or any temperament you choose. what matters is the content.

@ Repulsor Blast

No matter how logical your reasoning, and no matter how high your 90-95% assurance is... There's still the possibility Yurka was right. So until the movie comes out there really isn't any point trying to convince people why you're right and he's a phoney. Save that for when the movie is released and you can back up everything you're saying with the actual movie. You'll still be able to reference all the posts you've made this week and give the, "I told you so" to Yurka lol. Not saying I don't believe you, it's just constant back and fourth until someone inevitably sees the film in mid April and can confirm everything for us.

yep. i'm not even going to gloat if i am right. any gloating came from checking street view etc. i don't even want to go into tasm2 and be anxiously waiting for when the manhole shot scene is. i just want to watch the film. so i guess that's why i haven't let this go; i want it to be put to bed, and in the next two months, be forgotten about. kind of selfish, i know.

but yeah, i could be agnostic about everything re. tasm2 and never be wrong. but, then i'd never be right either. i chose to make a decision. there is significantly more evidence that rhino does not end the film compared to the contrary. it is not a 50-50 split. far from it.

 

[Morbius]

we have to come to conclusions based on evidence.

Could it be that you might be placing too much faith in the imagined logic of the filmmakers? We know movies aren't shot in order of scenes, and they shoot various scenes at the same time which take place in the same setting.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that several scenes look like they take place at the very same place and time, because they were just filmed that way - and it could just be poorly executed filming? It's not like TASM was without its issues.

I still don't believe Yurka saw the rough cut - I believe he/she knows someone linked to the franchise however - this is what i'm attributing their inconstant rebuttals to, which had originally led me to believe your interpretation of the events. I'm just starting to think perhaps they were right, but that still doesn't mean they literally saw anything.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

it's definitely a possibility. but for the sake of analysis, i assume that the filmmakers are competent. otherwise, you can't really do much.

if you are referring to the order of scenes via the sustainability reel, those storyboards were in order. the first one was a shot of a ticking clockface. all the following boards made perfect sense and were largely in line with what we had speculated and know from previous info (plane crash, followed by jump to present day, car chase).

best not to go down this road though. seems to lead to trouble lol. plus, this is the gwen stacy death thread. i've derailed it enough as it is.