The Amazing Spider-Man 2 With Great Sequel Comes Great Lounging - Part 7

[Napoleon]

Mixed review right here, says Dane Dehaan is good, but Andrew Garfield is mediocre.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014...azing-yet?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

Sounds like someone on CBM who ha an agenda against Garfield (if you're listening @JoeKickass, you know who it is).

 

[Web face]

Yeah, I'm not discrediting him or anything but it just seems like he has very different tastes. He keeps saying that Spidey is too confident, but that's one of the things I'm looking forward to.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Man, this movie is getting a ton of 3/5s, I hope that doesn't become its' standard, because that's pretty disappointing all things considering. Whenever I'd hear people mention the movie and how they were "eh" on it and feeling the same way about this one I always thought that they'd be proven wrong, but I mean from the outside I imagine it's not very promising. Funny how little the cast and crews confidence seemed to have had an effect on the reception, at least thus far, I hope it wasn't just PR speak, or Sony just having them say exactly what people would want to hear.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

Man, this movie is getting a ton of 3/5s, I hope that doesn't become its' standard, because that's pretty disappointing all things considering. Whenever I'd hear people mention the movie and how they were "eh" on it and feeling the same way about this one I always thought that they'd be proven wrong, but I mean from the outside I imagine it's not very promising. Funny how little the cast and crews confidence seemed to have had an effect on the reception, at least thus far, I hope it wasn't just PR speak, or Sony just having them say exactly what people would want to hear.

SIGH.........

 

[LizardMan07]

3/5 is a fresh review on RT

If each review stays like this with the occasional 4 and 5, dashed in with some 2's, we'll get a good rating on RT=no bomb=more tickets= yay sony.

As a spiderman film for spiderman fans it is going to be amazing as I've heard, that's all I care about

 

[Picard Sisko]

So after having a long discussion with someone who saw the film, I think the major thing causing not-so-glowing reviews is the fact that the focus is on Peter and Gwen. The story is mostly about them so it feels like the villains get shortchanged.

 

[SM71]

So after having a long discussion with someone who saw the film, I think the major thing causing not-so-glowing reviews is the fact that the focus is on Peter and Gwen. The story is mostly about them so it feels like the villains get shortchanged.

I know villains are the "IT" thing right now, in major part due to HL's Joker, but I am so beyond ok with this movie focusing on Peter and Gwen, and the villains getting shortchanged. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how that could be a problem. That's more or less the way it should be, imo

Also, if the villains are

Spoiler

killing your gf

that's enough villain involvement for me right there

 

[Picard Sisko]

Also, one of the villains spends most of his time on screen as Peter's friend (Harry), so there's that.

 

[SM71]

I know they're supposed to be foils to the protagonist and everything, but I really don't understand everyone's need for such deeply developed villains. Like I said, TDK really brought this idea to the forefront, for better or (I believe) worse.

CA:TWS had an absolutely terrible villain(s), and it was still very well received/reviewed, and a really great movie in my and many other's opinions.

So this "villains are under-developed" stuff sounds like a complete cop-out to find fault, again, with this franchise... I know I haven't seen TASM2 yet, but to me there's NO WAY the villains in this are worse than those from Cap2

 

[Picard Sisko]

As much as I love SM2 and Doc Ock, he wasn't that prominent in that movie in the long run. Think about it... after the bank fight, he basically disappears. He shows up here and there as we see his progress on his experiment, but otherwise the story focuses on Peter Parker.

 

[Spideyfan117]

Well, imo, it's important that your leads have the most development. Villains need development to be sure, but not as much. They aren't the characters you're supposed to be following and relating to after all. Though I'm sure for others, villains need more development. Or they interpret their development differently. I just want to see the film so I can see what I think of it.

 

[SM71]

Well, imo, it's important that your leads have the most development. Villains need development to be sure, but not as much. They aren't the characters you're supposed to be following and relating to after all. Though I'm sure for others, villains need more development. Or they interpret their development differently. I just want to see the film so I can see what I think of it.

Saaaaame. I'm literally aching for it at this point, it hurts.

 

[The Joker]

As much as I love SM2 and Doc Ock, he wasn't that prominent in that movie in the long run. Think about it... after the bank fight, he basically disappears. He shows up here and there as we see his progress on his experiment, but otherwise the story focuses on Peter Parker.

The Joker wasn't that prominent in TDK either. He actually has less screen time than Batman, Dent, and Gordon. It was a combination of spreading his scenes out nicely in the movie, and the amazing performance of Ledger.

Quality over quantity. Same with Doc Ock. To use a non CMB analogy, Hannbal Lecter has like twenty something minutes screen time in The Silence of the Lambs, and most of it is just him sitting in a cell talking to Clarice Starling. Another case of quality over quantity.

None of those movies got major complaints about the lack of villain exposure.

 

[Picard Sisko]

What I meant about Doc Ock is that he didn't seem to have much significance in terms of the main plot (e.g. Peter Parker losing his powers, dealing with MJ). He was more of another obstacle that Peter had to overcome with his struggle of dealing with being Spider-Man.

 

[The Joker]

What I meant about Doc Ock is that he didn't seem to have much significance in terms of the main plot (e.g. Peter Parker losing his powers, dealing with MJ).

If you mean he wasn't the cause of Peter losing his powers, or any of the MJ drama, yes obviously. But he still had a significant role in the overall story. While Peter was dealing with that we see Ock becoming the bigger threat rebuilding the reactor, going to Harry for the tritium, forcing Peter to become Spidey to meet him etc.

Not to mention the overall narrative of the movie reflected hero and villain's story. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life, and Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things so his dream could succeed.

One of the strongest aspects of the story was linking them on a conceptual level.

 

[LizardMan07]

Your posts regarding movies are generally very insightful Joker

 

[Airnick]

Your posts regarding movies are generally very insightful Joker

I agree, I really enjoy reading joker's posts.

 

[The Joker]

Your posts regarding movies are generally very insightful Joker

I agree, I really enjoy reading joker's posts.

Thanks guys. I appreciate that

 

[FN Spider-man]

@Joker yeah man that got me thinking again about it very nice

 

[Napoleon]

I know they're supposed to be foils to the protagonist and everything, but I really don't understand everyone's need for such deeply developed villains. Like I said, TDK really brought this idea to the forefront, for better or (I believe) worse.

CA:TWS had an absolutely terrible villain(s), and it was still very well received/reviewed, and a really great movie in my and many other's opinions.

So this "villains are under-developed" stuff sounds like a complete cop-out to find fault, again, with this franchise... I know I haven't seen TASM2 yet, but to me there's NO WAY the villains in this are worse than those from Cap2

I feel the same. TDK kinda spoiled people when it came to villains. Personally, if a Marvel based movie has a weak, villain, I don't usually hold it against them personally because IMO Marvel has the better heroes and DC has better villains. Hell ask people to put together a list of best CBM villains, and they'll almost always throw out at least 2 or 3 of the villains from Nolan's Bat trilogy, either of the versions of General Zod, Nicholson's Joker, etc., while with Marvel they more or less remember the heroes more. But that's just my perspective.

 

[SM71]

I feel the same. TDK kinda spoiled people when it came to villains. Personally, if a Marvel based movie has a weak, villain, I don't usually hold it against them personally because IMO Marvel has the better heroes and DC has better villains. Hell ask people to put together a list of best CBM villains, and they'll almost always throw out at least 2 or 3 of the villains from Nolan's Bat trilogy, either of the versions of General Zod, Nicholson's Joker, etc., while with Marvel they more or less remember the heroes more. But that's just my perspective.

Absolutely. Completely agree with you

I really can't think of any great MCU villains. Like you said, it mostly about the heroes. Which is fine to me. It's just disappointing to constanstly see that as a criticism against Spidey, especially when the movies are about Peter Parker

I will agree with what Joker said up there, however, about SM2 doing a really good job of connecting the arcs of the protagonist and antagonist together. So it can be done, it's just not a necessity for a good Spider-man movie IMO

 

[webhead731]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but Spider-Man 3 had a very, very similar and good start to its run too. Just look through this thread.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=270518&highlight=review

Tons of 3/5s, and a lot of good reviews.

While I like that movie, it did end up moving to more mixed/lukewarm reviews. Some great some bad as well.

Just an fyi.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I think Loki is probably the best MCU villain, but I'm not really a *fan* like other people are. And I think Thanos has a good shot at being a great baddie, but otherwise IDK. Too bad they don't have Galactus or Dr. Doom.

I think Spider-Man has a great Rogue's Gallery, but the focus is usually on Peter Parker. The best moments from the comic books revolve around Peter Parker and his supporting characters.

I know this may sound crazy, but you know who my favorite Spider-Man "villain" is?

Spoiler

J. Jonah Jameson.

 

[Spider-Ock]

Why haven't we gotten some reviews yet?

 

[Picard Sisko]

We only got 1 review today unfortunately. But it was positive at least.