The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

[riddler]

Doc Ock definitely wasn't sympathetic in the comics and I liked him better there. Same with Sadman, he was just a bad guy. I understand why Raimi wanted to make them sympathetic but I'd like to see a Spider-Man  villain on film who is a really negative character. Rhino seems to be like that but he's not really a main villain like the Goblin or Doc Ock.

I liked the Green Goblin too but like you said he was portrayed too cartoony and I would have wanted the duality aspect dropped entirely.  Norman Osborn in the comics didn't have a good side and an evil "Goblin" that was controlling him, he was the villain himself. I'm sure Dafoe would've been even better with these issues out of the way. Same with Alfred Molina and Doc Ock.


I thought Electro was OK in TASM 2, though I didn't think Max Dillon was that interesting. The Lizard was fine as the first villain but it could've been developed better, if they showed doctor Connors' family it would've been good.

I'm fine with Lizard being sympathetic, they kind of have to give his tragic story and splicing with a reptile.

One common denominator from these films is many of the villains have been bullied to an extent by bosses; Dafoes character was forced to speed up human trials, likewise for Connors funding, Max Dillon was treated badly and the board was trying to force Harry out.

I didn't like the sympathetic Max Dillon character as much as could have been. Jamie Foxx is kind of a jerk, i'd have preferred to let him get bad; picture his character from Any Given sunday with powers giving everyone he hated an FU.

[The Laughing Fish]

James Horner on The Amazing Spider-Man series:

"To me, the whole thing about doing the movie was I liked the director and there was a chance to write something for the two lead characters and then she dies in the next movie," Horner said. "But the next movie ended up being so terrible, I didn't want to do it. It was just dreadful."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/james-horner-says-amazing-spider-man-2-was-terrible-producers-didnt-want-marc-webbs-input-20141208

And rumours about Marvel regaining some rights to the character for the MCU:

Fans should not lose hope of seeing Spider Man in Marvel's Captain America 3: Civil War, just yet. Recent reports suggest that Spidey could still become part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe and join The Avengers.

According to Latino Review, Sony Entertainment (which currently holds the rights to Spider Man) and Marvel Studios are currently negotiating a deal to share the rights at a 60/40 split.

However, as per the report, Marvel's not inclined to give Sony creative control over the character, "nor planning on honoring the contracts with Sony's Spider-Stars."

Which essentially means that if the deal works out, current Spider Man star Andrew Garfield will no longer play the superhero on screen. The website also reports that Marvel intends to start the franchise with a clean slate and move away from the romantic love story angle which was a strong part of the earlier films.

"If the Marvel/Sony deal were to go forward, Andrew Garfield would no longer be Peter Parker and any baggage from existing films, Raimi or Webb, would be non-canonical, Marvel doesn't want any part of those films.

"The idea is that the Spider-Man romance movie has been played out over five installments, so any new Spider-Man film would focus more on the difficulties of being a teenager, with the romantic element as just a side story.

"Marvel also thinks that the origin story is well-trodden territory, so any Spider-Man movies under this deal would begin with Peter Parker already leading a dual life. Spider-Man making his debut in Captain America: Civil War is still a distinct possibility and would serve as the character's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/james-horner-says-amazing-spider-man-2-was-terrible-producers-didnt-want-marc-webbs-input-20141208

I watched TASM2 awhile ago, and while I can definitely say that the villains were the weakest part of the movie, I didn't think the movie was as bad as people make it out to be. I don't need to hear someone like Dark Knight fanboys talk about underdeveloped villains when their favourite movie in the world is just as guilty of that and a lot more. In hindsight, it's amazing how nobody else in Hollywood figured out that all you need to do is have the villains take themselves so seriously and you'll get away with whatever nonsense the script is because you're "dark and gritty". 

In my opinion, the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and how Peter's guilt for betraying his promise to George Stacy is what made the movie for me. It might be a retread to focus on Peter Parker's romantic relationship , but I thought it was done well, and Gwen Stacy's death was a tragic and believable moment.

If the rumours about the current Spider-Man franchise coming to a premature end are true, then it's a shame. Especially when this movie ended on a rather unfinished note too.

[The Joker]

If the Sony/Marvel deal doesn't pan out, I wonder how the talks between Raimi and Sony truly went? Could be a Bryan Singer type scenario there, as it had been well over 10 years before Singer returned to the X-Men franchise.

The "Spider-Man as an adult" scenario sounds intriguing enough if that turns out to be the plan. As it's true Peter hasn't been a teen in the classic 616 universe in decades. Unfortunately, the amount of reboots Spidey is, apparently, likely to get in such a short time frame is excessive to say the least.

[johnnygobbs]

And rumours about Marvel regaining some rights to the character for the MCU:

Fans should not lose hope of seeing Spider Man in Marvel's Captain America 3: Civil War, just yet. Recent reports suggest that Spidey could still become part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe and join The Avengers.

According to Latino Review, Sony Entertainment (which currently holds the rights to Spider Man) and Marvel Studios are currently negotiating a deal to share the rights at a 60/40 split.

However, as per the report, Marvel's not inclined to give Sony creative control over the character, "nor planning on honoring the contracts with Sony's Spider-Stars."

Which essentially means that if the deal works out, current Spider Man star Andrew Garfield will no longer play the superhero on screen. The website also reports that Marvel intends to start the franchise with a clean slate and move away from the romantic love story angle which was a strong part of the earlier films.

"If the Marvel/Sony deal were to go forward, Andrew Garfield would no longer be Peter Parker and any baggage from existing films, Raimi or Webb, would be non-canonical, Marvel doesn't want any part of those films.

"The idea is that the Spider-Man romance movie has been played out over five installments, so any new Spider-Man film would focus more on the difficulties of being a teenager, with the romantic element as just a side story.

"Marvel also thinks that the origin story is well-trodden territory, so any Spider-Man movies under this deal would begin with Peter Parker already leading a dual life. Spider-Man making his debut in Captain America: Civil War is still a distinct possibility and would serve as the character's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/james-horner-says-amazing-spider-man-2-was-terrible-producers-didnt-want-marc-webbs-input-20141208

I watched TASM2 awhile ago, and while I can definitely say that the villains were the weakest part of the movie, I didn't think the movie was as bad as people make it out to be. I don't need to hear someone like Dark Knight fanboys talk about underdeveloped villains when their favourite movie in the world is just as guilty of that and a lot more. In hindsight, it's amazing how nobody else in Hollywood figured out that all you need to do is have the villains take themselves so seriously and you'll get away with whatever nonsense the script is because you're "dark and gritty". 

In my opinion, the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and how Peter's guilt for betraying his promise to George Stacy is what made the movie for me. It might be a retread to focus on Peter Parker's romantic relationship , but I thought it was done well, and Gwen Stacy's death was a tragic and believable moment.

If the rumours about the current Spider-Man franchise coming to a premature end are true, then it's a shame. Especially when this movie ended on a rather unfinished note too.

I like this rumour.

Sure, TASM2 wasn't that bad, at all, and it would be a shame that the series ended so prematurely, but ultimately, I still think it fell way short of the MCU films particularly in terms of offering a coherent narrative.  Spider-Man is Sony's only comic-book property so clearly they were in a rush to expand that universe and develop various spin-off films ASAP (including a Sinister Six and Venom film) and sadly it shows in the film's execution.

Unlike the various MCU films which took time to develop their stories organically before building up to The Avengers team-movie, TASM2 suffered from that common problem among many sub-par comic-book movies: trying to cram in as many villains as possible (in fact this was the same problem that scuppered Spider-Man 3 and ironically prompted Sony to reboot the series in the first place).  The apparent childhood friendship between Peter and Harry was contrived with all the inelegance of a daytime soap-opera (why didn't we hear anything about their friendship in the first film in which Peter was up against Oscorp?), and unlike Sam Raimi's Spider-Man there was no real sense of pathos when Harry turned bad; the audience hadn't witnessed any connection between Garfield's Parker and Dane DeHaan's Harry akin to the chemistry Tobey Maguire and James Franco had developed, in the same roles, throughout the course of three films.

Although I'd ideally like to see some backstory, although not necessarily yet another origin story, were Spider-Man to be incorporated into the MCU, I would simply be happy to see him interact alongside the established Avengers, and act as a wise-cracking counter-point to some of the more earnest members.

I also like the idea of Parker remaining a teenager throughout a number of films as I feel that both Raimi and Marc Webb rather skimped on those early high school years in Parker's life, and as the article states, focused too early on Parker's epic romances rather than those awkward adolescent years when he was the scorn of both his male and female classmates.  Spider-Man could be like a release, a 'Mask'-like alter-ego that allows the shy, bullied Parker to cut loose and unleash his comical, mischievous id. 

[Edd Grayson]

I see a lot of people hated the TASM movies. I liked them better than the Raimi films, really.

They each have their strengths and weaknesses, with the Raimi films being more coherent stories and having more memorable villains and with Webb's films having superior lead actors and getting thew wise-cracking Spider-Man right.

If they have to reboot it, I'd like to see them try and combine the good points in these franchises, but start off with Peter already as Spider-Man. Showing another origin story is really unnecessary. And they can always use flashbacks.

I wish the rumor turns out to be true because Spidey works really well paired with other Marvel superheroes, and I think that's because he's not like any of the rest, he's a teenager with superpowers, and yet he has the same problems teenagers have.

Showing Peter more as a teenager also would have to include his experiences with girls, remember he had no problem asking girls out as Peter Parker but he would be turned down in favor of Flash Thompson or Ned Leeds. He was bullied but he wasn't scared and he made fun of it even if he was forced to pretend he was weak so that no one would suspect he was Spider-Man. He had his moments of wanting to give up because of a romantic rejection or lack of appreciation for his heroic deeds, but he realised that he must continue.

Marvel has done a good job with adapting their characters so far, I expect no less from adapting their flagship character

[riddler]

I see a lot of people hated the TASM movies. I liked them better than the Raimi films, really.

They each have their strengths and weaknesses, with the Raimi films being more coherent stories and having more memorable villains and with Webb's films having superior lead actors and getting thew wise-cracking Spider-Man right.

If they have to reboot it, I'd like to see them try and combine the good points in these franchises, but start off with Peter already as Spider-Man. Showing another origin story is really unnecessary. And they can always use flashbacks.

I wish the rumor turns out to be true because Spidey works really well paired with other Marvel superheroes, and I think that's because he's not like any of the rest, he's a teenager with superpowers, and yet he has the same problems teenagers have.

Showing Peter more as a teenager also would have to include his experiences with girls, remember he had no problem asking girls out as Peter Parker but he would be turned down in favor of Flash Thompson or Ned Leeds. He was bullied but he wasn't scared and he made fun of it even if he was forced to pretend he was weak so that no one would suspect he was Spider-Man. He had his moments of wanting to give up because of a romantic rejection or lack of appreciation for his heroic deeds, but he realised that he must continue.

Marvel has done a good job with adapting their characters so far, I expect no less from adapting their flagship character

I maintain that the biggest reason people hate on the Webb spidey films are the circumstances instead of the films themselves; The Raimi films were all heavily hyped especially 1 and 3. There wasn't quite the same appetite for the reboot in 2012 for the resurgence. There are also bitter fans of the first series who had ill will on the reboot. And of course with the Avengers and th dark knight rises being released in the last 3 months, those were tough acts to follow.


The reality is that every character who appears in both series was upgraded the second time around with the exception of the Osborns. Tobey Maguire was terrible especially by the 3rd film. The only thing he got right was the nerdy pre spider-man Parker, which makes me wonder if that is why the spider-man no more plot was included in the second film. The third film greatly suffered when Tobey had to show confidence. You can say anything you like about Gatfield but he didn't draw unintended laughs the way Maguire did.
While mildly intrigued about the potential about a Raimi sequel I wouldn't have interest if the same cast is involved; next to JK Simmons, James Franco was the most fitting actor in that original series. Nothing against Dylan Baker but I doubt he could carry a film as the lead villain.


I do hope the Webb series continues; its obvious that the second film was a set up film similar to Iron Man 2.

[Edd Grayson]

I agree riddler, there were a lot of bitter fans as well as casual fans who complained that a reboot wasn't interesting enough to compare to the Avnegers or TDKR. And now it seems that TASM 3 has been delayed for 2018 with the Sinister Six movie to be released in 2016. A lot can happen until then. I'm not so sure about this franchise's future, unfortunately...

Interesting that Marc Webb said Norman Osborn would return, so he;s not dead after all, and you guys were right. 

[riddler]

Well we knew that Osborn couldn't be dead, what kind of director brings in a major villain for a few scenes then kills him off


I was excited about this spider-man universe but don't really understand how they can have a Venom movie  without the symbiote developed; you need 1 or 2 movies before having a protagonist venom; one with spidey having the suit and then spidey fight venom.

[Edd Grayson]

[The Laughing Fish]

Marvel President Alan Fine allegedly hated TASM 2's script so much that he wanted to "burn" it. Here is an alleged email he wrote that was exposed in this Sony hacking crisis. But for all I know, it could have been faked because the email is dated back to two years ago.



Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112638

I can understand the complaints about the underdeveloped villains, but then again nobody cared too much about that in the recent Batman films. Sure, the TASM series probably retreads old ground here and there too, but judging them as they are, I don't think they're too bad.

I find it bizarre that he suggested these films should've served as a prequel to the Raimi ones.