The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Why Did Critics Slam TASM 2?

[harryoscop]

Just don't understand why.

 

[LizardMan07]

This has been discussed a fair bit...

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

OH PICK ME!!!

C'mon PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!!!!

 

[Em Dee]

oh pick me!!!

c'mon pick me!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!!! Pick me!!!! Pick me!!!!!

mrs clifton mrs clifton mrs clifton mrs clifton mrs clifton mrs clifton

 

[Visualiza]

You'll get your answer if you read what they had to say.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Lol at the answers on here

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Just don't understand why.

They didn't. It's 53% so around half liked it and half didn't.

A 'slamming' would be the cast majority disliking it with a 20% or so rating.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

If I got a 53 on a test, that would mean I failed. So Sony, you failed.

 

[Lord]

OH PICK ME!!!

C'mon PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!!!!

Oh God, pleace...no Family Guy jokes, for all that's sacred...

 

[Oscorp]

Sure, 53% literally means slightly MORE than half of the reviewers liked it. But, given the popularity of the character and the potential, a Spider-Man film shouldn't have such a low percentage. It's easily a failure in my eyes. Especially when other CBMs like Captain America and X-Men are up there in the 80-90s. CBMs are in, and Spider-Man should be the top dog.

 

[JOE]

No, 53% of users thought it was "meh" or better. That's all RT is...

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Sure, 53% literally means slightly MORE than half of the reviewers liked it. But, given the popularity of the character and the potential, a Spider-Man film shouldn't have such a low percentage. It's easily a failure in my eyes. Especially when other CBMs like Captain America and X-Men are up there in the 80-90s. CBMs are in, and Spider-Man should be the top dog.

Agreed. It doesn't help that it followed a Captain America: The Winter Soldier which has received a great amount of positive feed back from both fans and critics, and then being followed by Days of Future Past which also had the same positive outcome.

 

[Oscorp]

Agreed. It doesn't help that it followed a Captain America: The Winter Soldier which has received a great amount of positive feed back from both fans and critics, and then being followed by Days of Future Past which also had the same positive outcome.

Yeah. Never would I have thought that in times like these, a Spider-Man film would be deemed so impopular compared to the likes of Captain America.

Spider-Man has the stories, the personality, the world, the villains, the other characters etc. to deseve a film up there with The Dark Knight in quality. To get a film this poor is pretty baffling with that in mind.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Let's put it this way.

Compared to TASM1, it's a step in the wrong direction.

 

[The Joker]

Because it deserved it.

 

[socool]

Why does this even need a thread? This has been discussed in LENGTH in several other threads.

Yeah. Never would I have thought that in times like these, a Spider-Man film would be deemed so impopular compared to the likes of Captain America.

Spider-Man has the stories, the personality, the world, the villains, the other characters etc. to deseve a film up there with The Dark Knight in quality. To get a film this poor is pretty baffling with that in mind.

Agreed. Spider-Man has the potential for a great film! (see Spider-Man 2) Sony just decides to not use like...ANY of that potential. They're far too focused on the later rather than the now. They're trying to run before they know how to crawl and they are falling. Hard.

 

[socool]

Because it deserved it.

The Joker: Tellin' it like it is since 2003.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Because they felt the movie had to many things going on and was hard to follow ( which it honestly wasn't) and the villans weren't developed enough. Also, some of it was just bias because some feel this reboot is still to soon after the Rami movies.

The movie certainly isn't as horrible as critics and some fanboys make it out to be. Personally, I think this movie nailed the actual Spider Man character way better than the Rami movies EVER did. And Emma Stone's Gwen is MILES better than Kristen Dunest uninspired/ dull performance as MJ. But ASM 2 does have flaws that kinda drag the movie down a bit. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

 

[socool]

Because they felt the movie had to many things going on and was hard to follow ( which it honestly wasn't) and the villans weren't developed enough. Also, some of it was just bias because some feel this reboot is still to soon after the Rami movies.

The movie certainly isn't as horrible as critics and some fanboys make it out to be. Personally, I think this movie nailed the actual Spider Man character way better than the Rami movies EVER did. And Emma Stone's Gwen is MILES better than Kristen Dunest uninspired/ dull performance as MJ. But ASM 2 does have flaws that kinda drag the movie down a bit. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

The bold I completely agree with. The problem is that the bold is also the majority of the good the movie had. Include some nice special effects, a nice soundtrack, and a decent final Electro fight, and you named every "Pro" this movie has going for it. In my opinion, of course.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Does it nail certain characters? Yes.

Is the story better? **** no. The most important part of a film isn't if they nail the character or not but the story. If you can nail the story, you can nail the characters and everything else.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Let's put it this way.

Compared to TASM1, it's a step in the wrong direction.

If I could give you a medal for this, I would. This is exactly why. TASM1 wasn't perfect, but was a step in the right direction, and the sequel had potential because the flaws in the first one could have been fixed and made into a great sequel, but instead, the movie went into the wrong direction.

 

[Lord]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 went so much in the opposite direction of the previous film that it ended up being caugh into even more problems.

 

[TheSpidey22]

i like garfield as spiderman and the rest of the cast for the most part...but ive never really been thrilled with anything sony has done with spiderman..i think the worst was still sm3..i never even cared for sm2 either, people like doc ock, but i think he was butchered..from all the books i read doc ock never had compassion..and liek i said i like the newer cast & both the films... but theyve been doin quite a bit of story twisting from the original source wich i think is good enough as is to stand the test of time as is. but its getten rated meh cuz theyre just not improving what needs to be.

 

[SpideyK]

Just don't understand why.

Because they didn't like it.

 

[SpideyK]

Is the story better? **** no. The most important part of a film isn't if they nail the character or not but the story. If you can nail the story, you can nail the characters and everything else.

I'd like to quote Max Landis right now, but I'd just end up paraphrasing, so I'll just quote my own thoughts.

A good plot does not equal interesting characters, and like him, I think good characters are to be prioritized before good plot.

A movie is nothing without interesting characters, regardless of how advanced and well written the plot is.