The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

[The Joker]

That's my entire point Joker; the 'Spider-Man 3' basis for the Symbiote arriving on Earth was atrocious.  In fact, there was no basis.

But I'm curious because I only have vague memories of the animated TV show, as good as it was; what was the scenario for the Symbiote arriving on Earth and how did Spider-Man come to be involved?

The scenario was pretty much, upon re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere, John Jameson and his crew were attacked by the symbiote, which was trying to consume them, causing Jameson to crash the shuttle on the George Washington Bridge. Brock then frames Spidey for what looks like theft from the shuttle, completely leaving out Rhino showing up, which naturally, leads to a bounty on Spider-Man. At first, Peter believes his classic spidey suit must have picked up some pollution during the incident, but upon giving him a nightmare in his sleep, he wakes up completely engulfed in the suit, and notices the enhanced abilities it's giving him. Raimi's Spider-Man 3 stayed very close to that particular part. Eventually, he has another battle with the Rhino, and tries to kill him, which leaves Peter wondering if the symbiote is influencing his actions.

And I'm with you Johnny, give me something more akin to the 616 Eddie Brock/Venom origin, as opposed to the ultimate route. That may just be me nearly always preferring the classic 616 stuff over the ultimate stuff, but I really don't have any desire to see Eddie Brock Jr. once again, and all that that particular version details as it relates to more back story with Richard Parker and how his legacy/actions continue to affect Peter's life. Honestly, I'm getting to a point where the less known about Peter's parents, the better it was. Much like Wolverine and his mysterious/questionable past (that's another story). As I generally prefer the idea of Peter being brilliant, yes, but essentially evoked as a 'everyman' who readers could relate to, that just so happened to have this gift/curse bestowed upon him by the fate of a unique spider bite. As opposed to continually retconning the past to further tie characters/events/motivations to his past. 

[riddler]

One thing to keep in mind is that after the next spider-man film comes the Venom film with Carnage as the villain. So they'll have to keep Venom grounded to an extend and give him boundaries.

[The Dark Knight]

I don't have a problem with the way Eddie Brock was conceived in 'Spider-Man 3' which was more or less taken directly from the original (i.e. non-Ultimate) comic-books; I just thought it was rushed and poorly handled, and of course the Symbiote and how it happened to be on Earth in the first place was just ridiculously random and poorly thought-out.

I didn't have a problem with it. The 'Parker luck'. Just as it's all going good for him, a problem literally falls out of the sky. Harry aside, that's how happy and nigh bulletproof Peter was at that time - it took an extra-terrestrial force from outer space to land metres from him. Ridiculously random is true of most comic book villain origins.

The symbiote looks for aggression, but I think it sensed the power of Peter and bided its time, knowing it was onto something special. An intelligent haunting, hiding in Peter's room and from MJ. Striking when Peter was at his most vulnerable. During sleep, as The Joker points out, is close to the comics.

The symbiote also took the form of a black suit, which Peter could keep in his box, which made it look and feel more non-threatening and 'normal'. That said, I would like something different in the reboot for differentiation.

Anyway, back to TASM2. I've read the negative reviews and can't help but think these are clouded my preconceived negativity. I think I can speak on this, given I felt it during TASM's production and its subsequent release. But I've moved on now, and TASM2 is a large part of that. The harsh reviews are hyperbolic and blowing what I deem niggles into movie breakers. There's more positive than negative to be found here.

[riddler]

I don't have a problem with the way Eddie Brock was conceived in 'Spider-Man 3' which was more or less taken directly from the original (i.e. non-Ultimate) comic-books; I just thought it was rushed and poorly handled, and of course the Symbiote and how it happened to be on Earth in the first place was just ridiculously random and poorly thought-out.

I didn't have a problem with it. The 'Parker luck'. Just as it's all going good for him, a problem literally falls out of the sky. Harry aside, that's how happy and nigh bulletproof Peter was at that time - it took an extra-terrestrial force from outer space to land metres from him. Ridiculously random is true of most comic book villain origins.

The symbiote looks for aggression, but I think it sensed the power of Peter and bided its time, knowing it was onto something special. An intelligent haunting, hiding in Peter's room and from MJ. Striking when Peter was at his most vulnerable. During sleep, as The Joker points out, is close to the comics.

The symbiote also took the form of a black suit, which Peter could keep in his box, which made it look and feel more non-threatening and 'normal'. That said, I would like something different in the reboot for differentiation.

Anyway, back to TASM2. I've read the negative reviews and can't help but think these are clouded my preconceived negativity. I think I can speak on this, given I felt it during TASM's production and its subsequent release. But I've moved on now, and TASM2 is a large part of that. The harsh reviews are hyperbolic and blowing what I deem niggles into movie breakers. There's more positive than negative to be found here.

I think maybe the reason why the fans seems to like it better than the critics is that it's a better spidey film or comic film than it is a film. If you look at it just as a film it's definitely flawed; the narrative and plot are both thin, there's not an awful lot of character development. But if you knew the character or even enjoyed superhero films it hits all the right notes and gives you what you want to see. The Nolan films are the other way around; better films than they are bat films or comic films; all the issues which bug us (other than Bales voice) pertain to what the character SHOULD be based on other interpretations.

[johnnygobbs]

I think maybe the reason why the fans seems to like it better than the critics is that it's a better spidey film or comic film than it is a film. If you look at it just as a film it's definitely flawed; the narrative and plot are both thin, there's not an awful lot of character development. But if you knew the character or even enjoyed superhero films it hits all the right notes and gives you what you want to see. The Nolan films are the other way around; better films than they are bat films or comic films; all the issues which bug us (other than Bales voice) pertain to what the character SHOULD be based on other interpretations.

The thing is, I really do think it was a good film, from an objective perspective more than as a Spidey-fan.  In fact, as a Spidey-fan I already outlined some of my disappointments in how the filmmakers overlooked certain available angles (ideally I'd have liked to have seen more time spent on Parker's school years with characters like Liz Allen and more from Flash Thompson, as well as an earlier introduction for JJJ, who I assume we'll see in the next films), but I can overlook all that because this film managed to put together a compelling, well-structured story featuring great performances, striking art-direction and cinematography and a kick-ass soundtrack and score (like others have said, Zimmer seemed to save his best stuff for Spidey, not Bats).

I don't know why the critics have beaten-up on this film.  I was expecting it to be mediocre, not on the basis of the reviews which I've barely read (the only two I have read, one in the 'Guardian', which gave it a 4/5, and one in 'Empire Magazine' which gave it a 3/5, were both enthusiastic - the 'Empire' review read more like a 4/5 than a 3/5 to be honest), but in terms of the trailer and the way everything seemed to be set up (I was thinking "oh dear, here we go, another overstuffed 'Spider-Man 3'"); so I was pleasantly surprised how good it turned out to be.

I know the critics aren't part of a conspiracy but I almost think many of them sub-consciously thought "we've been so positive about other CBMs recently this is the time to beat-up on 'Spider-Man'".  After all, few mainstream critics are big comic-book fans and one can't help thinking that as soon as one or two gave it a poor review the rest just followed like lemmings.

[riddler]

I think maybe the reason why the fans seems to like it better than the critics is that it's a better spidey film or comic film than it is a film. If you look at it just as a film it's definitely flawed; the narrative and plot are both thin, there's not an awful lot of character development. But if you knew the character or even enjoyed superhero films it hits all the right notes and gives you what you want to see. The Nolan films are the other way around; better films than they are bat films or comic films; all the issues which bug us (other than Bales voice) pertain to what the character SHOULD be based on other interpretations.

The thing is, I really do think it was a good film, from an objective perspective more than as a Spidey-fan.  In fact, as a Spidey-fan I already outlined some of my disappointments in how the filmmakers overlooked certain available angles (ideally I'd have liked to have seen more time spent on Parker's school years with characters like Liz Allen and more from Flash Thompson, as well as an earlier introduction for JJJ, who I assume we'll see in the next films), but I can overlook all that because this film managed to put together a compelling, well-structured story featuring great performances, striking art-direction and cinematography and a kick-ass soundtrack and score (like others have said, Zimmer seemed to save his best stuff for Spidey, not Bats).

I don't know why the critics have beaten-up on this film.  I was expecting it to be mediocre, not on the basis of the reviews which I've barely read (the only two I have read, one in the 'Guardian', which gave it a 4/5, and one in 'Empire Magazine' which gave it a 3/5, were both enthusiastic - the 'Empire' review read more like a 4/5 than a 3/5 to be honest), but in terms of the trailer and the way everything seemed to be set up (I was thinking "oh dear, here we go, another overstuffed 'Spider-Man 3'"); so I was pleasantly surprised how good it turned out to be.

I know the critics aren't part of a conspiracy but I almost think many of them sub-consciously thought "we've been so positive about other CBMs recently this is the time to beat-up on 'Spider-Man'".  After all, few mainstream critics are big comic-book fans and one can't help thinking that as soon as one or two gave it a poor review the rest just followed like lemmings.

One issue is the pace is too fast for critics. You know the way some of them work; they love boring films like the dark knight rises. You could tell Nolan and co. made a film to win awards as opposed to entertain audiences. ASM2 wasn't made to please anyone but the fans who wanted to see it. Though like you said the critics didn't hide their enthusiasm for the Avengers or cap 2. Luckily fans weren't fooled. the IMDB has it at 7.5 / 10

[riddler]

This is in response to the Rachel Dawes vs. Gwen Stacey discussion from the random thread


One difference though is that Batman doesn't have any well known love interests in the comics other than villains ala Lois Lane, Betty Brant, Carol Ferris, Pepper Potts etc. Vicky Vale and Chase Meridian were created in the previous series. So credit where credit is due, it is more excusable for Nolan to create character for love interests than it would have been for Marc Webb.

Definitely IMO Gwen Stacy in the Webb films sets the standard for what a love interest should be and MJ in the previous series sets the standard for what a love interest shouldn't be.

MJ:
-constantly gives Peter a hard time before and after finding out his alter ego
-is shallow and falls for the bad boys
-constantly becoming the dansel in distress; 6 times spidey had to save her in that series. And he also saved Gwen once

Gwen
-appears to actually be smarter than Peter
-actually helps the hero
-ends up saving spider-man more than he saves her (show me another superhero film where this happens)
-accepts and supports the hero

Rachel is somewhere in between. She gives Bruce a hard time, he never had to save her in the first film, did have to save her twice in the second film (failing once), She's a DA so she does do positive things to help Bruce. She did support what Bruce stood for.


********ASM2 spoilers below, don't read any further if you don't want to be spoiled*******



I expect Peter to use Gwen as an inspiration similar to how he does for Ben and Captain Stacey. I don't expect him to whine about failing. At least in Gwens case he knows he tried everything he could to protect her. Not so much with Ben.

[GBglide]

Vicky Vale and Chase Meridian were created in the previous series.

Vicki Vale was from the comics, Chase Meridian was made for the movies.

[johnnygobbs]

Vicky Vale and Chase Meridian were created in the previous series.

Vicki Vale was from the comics, Chase Meridian was made for the movies.

Yes, Vicki Vale has been about since the 1940s and was in one of the early black and white Batman films.  She was created by Bob Kane on the basis of one of his supposed girlfriends, Norma Jean who later became a certain Marilyn Monroe.

It's true that many of Batman/Bruce Wayne's other comic-book girlfriends have been either villains/anti-heroines or 'girly-girls'.  Rachel was thankfully neither.

[The Joker]

One criticism of the Raimi Spidey films that NOW should be falling by the way side, and one that was so tiring to read over and over, was the idea that the Raimi films were somehow 'corny' or 'cheesy' in comparison to Webb's ASM.

After having seen ASM2, that silly criticism certainly no longer applies. Especially in light of Jamie Foxx as Max Dillion/Electro, where some scenes came across, atleast to me, as incredibly influenced by the Raimi films, or just flat out in the exact same tone that Raimi implemented as opposed to a more gritty/darker take that ASM decided to go with in order to differentiate itself from the former series. It's a criticism that has irked me since the debut of ASM back in 2012, but I cannot see that goofy argument being seriously used by any Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy hater anymore. Especially now....