will The Amazing Spider-Man movies be forgotten in the future?

[The Dark Knight]

I never really grasped why the fans hated TASM2 so much, and continue to do so. I found the first TASM movie bland, even though I wouldn't call it a bad movie. It was TASM2 that got me fully on board the reboot. For the first real time (and I say this as a Raimi fan) Spider-Man was depicted as a mouthy quipper who saved the city and had fun at the same time. The heart and funky soul of Raimi was still there - Spidey wearing a beanie and sneezing at the corner store anyone? And the obvious strength of Emma Stone. That's what Raimi and Webb both had - strong female leads we cared about.

Hans Zimmer did an amazing job with the score in my opinion. He took something that absolutely belonged to Elfman (and still does) and made it his own. He did the same thing with Superman as well. In that regard he deserves a round of applause.

Cold War is as Spider-Man-y as it gets. It's a young, rock n' roll ball of energy that's simply fun to listen to. No Place Like Home is the conclusion of the two-part track and ends things in a really poignant way. Zimmer created a very simply but hummable theme that could easily be integrated into action sequences. I Need To Know is like Inception dipped in superhero jelly. I could go on, but needless to say I think Zimmer did a great job.

[thecolorsblend]

I agree. Zimmer reached down deep for the ASM2 score and went pretty far outside his usual wheelhouse. The result is a powerful score with melodic, emotional lows and truly epic highs.

I think the objection a lot of people have against ASM2 is that it's a textured character piece when people wanted an action fest. More Spider-Man, more quips, more swinging around the city, more fist fights, all that stuff.

I wouldn't be the first to compare the Webbverse to Ultimate Spider-Man while Raimi was more in line with the Lee/Romita era. But I think it holds true. Zimmer's score works well paired with Ultimate Spider-Man comics while Elfman's stuff is a good accompaniment to a lot of the late 60's-early 90's Spider-Man.

[riddler]

In hindsight I think the problem was that Webb and co. had perhaps kept too much in the vault for the 3rd film we never got. I prefer the 2nd ASM film because that's really when it gets its legs. The first film kind of gets bogged down retelling a story we saw on screen ten years prior, the 2nd film is entirely fresh new material for the big screen.

I agree there's no bad Spider-man film, every one gives you a reason to re watch it later. The only villain to be duplicated was the Harry Osborn goblin which wasn't in either film for long. Like Batman, this character has proven that it can be interpreted differently along the dark/light scale.

[The Dark Knight]

In the same way Raimi has a trilogy that he didn't fully intend because the plug was pulled, I think the same can be said of Webb. Garfield's young love dies and he will continue fighting crime to honor her memory. That's a clear beginning and end for the arc that began in TASM. This is his life now, and it's never going to end. Sure, the story was set up to continue with the Sinister Six references. But the story always goes on. Just as Spidey dispatched Rhino early on in the film, only for him to return bigger and badder later on.

[riddler]

In the same way Raimi has a trilogy that he didn't fully intend because the plug was pulled, I think the same can be said of Webb. Garfield's young love dies and he will continue fighting crime to honor her memory. That's a clear beginning and end for the arc that began in TASM. This is his life now, and it's never going to end. Sure, the story was set up to continue with the Sinister Six references. But the story always goes on. Just as Spidey dispatched Rhino early on in the film, only for him to return bigger and badder later on.

That is basically the mindset that you need in order to enjoy ASM 2; just enjoy the film and don't focus on what may come next for the character. I guess we're just led to believe that Gwen and Harry inspired Peter to become a better and smarter hero going forward. The difference though is the Raimi series didn't leave plotlines unopened, the initial plan for that series was to do it as two trilogies with the 4th entry opening up new plotlines to start the second phase for the character. It was an appropriate send off for that character. In hindsight it's a good thing we got the final scene of Spidey preparing to fight the Rhino, otherwise we'd be left to believe he may have retired after Gwen's death. It would have been cool to see Paul Giamatti play the villain in part 3 but the Rhino is not exactly spideys arch nemesis, the unresolved cliffhanger we got with that character isn't a huge deal.

[Silver Nemesis]

Watching all the Spider-Man films again recently, I was struck by how bittersweet the endings to both Maguire and Garfield's final outings were.

Raimi's first two movies end with Spider-Man swinging through the city while the score swells triumphantly. Spider-Man 2 adds a darker twist by cutting to a shot of MJ looking anxious, hinting at the complications that lie ahead for her and Peter. But both movies have mostly upbeat endings. By contrast, Spider-Man 3 ends with a very sombre scene of Peter and MJ holding each other. MJ's had to give up her dream of being on Broadway, Peter's lost his best friend, and his and MJ's relationship may never fully recover from the damage its sustained. There's a note of hope, but also regret. The final shot of Maguire in the role is a close-up of his face bearing a solemn and introspective look. Then it fades to black. Even the choice of music on the end credits reflects the sombre mood.

Similarly TASM2 ends on a hopeful but sad note. Peter's lost Gwen, he's broken his promise to her father and must live with the guilt of what happened, his former best friend has turned to the dark/green side, and he spends five months wallowing in grief with only Aunt May for comfort. His life is completely derailed, and the one thing dragging him out of his slump is the city's dependency on him. The final shot of Garfield's Spider-Man is heroic, but also tainted by sadness. I hope when Holland makes his exit he'll go out on a happier note than his predecessors.

In retrospect, I think it's probably a good thing Raimi's fourth film was never made. I was really looking forward to his second trilogy at the time, and I felt betrayed when Sony opted for a reboot instead. But looking back on the situation, I expect Sony would've screwed those movies up anyway. Spider-Man 3 isn't the perfect ending to the trilogy, but it does offer closure. The Osborn storyline is concluded, Harry's dead, all the major villains have been defeated, and Peter and MJ are back together. It was a good place to stop. Besides, I doubt Malkovich's Vulture would have been anywhere near as good as Keaton's.

[The Laughing Fish]

Via digging, I know Homecoming retroactively shows Peter was video blogging in Civil War, right before he jumps out to reveal himself at the airport. If showing another side of past events is a crime, Homecoming and the MCU Spider-Man is guilty too. But y'know, this is completely different to showing another side of the Metropolis attack in BvS. Just as Marvel retroactively made Iron Man 2 Peter's first canon appearance. BvS builds upon MoS as well, because uh, it's a sequel. But all we get is double standards and semantics.

I'm less annoyed about retconning moments and events than I am by the way the MCU has included Spider-Man into the franchise. The way it's been handled has been unbelievably flimsy and it reeks nothing more but a blatant cash grab.

As I've said many times before, Spider-Man didn't need to be in Civil War. There's no reason why Tony Stark would need Peter Parker in the hunt for Bucky, never mind the fact Parker has no business in the dispute between the Avengers. But perhaps the biggest flaw with Spider-Man's appearance in Civil War is it undermines Tony Stark's arc. Despite burdened with guilt over the death of a young American kid who died during the Avengers' battle in Sokovia, here he goes recruiting a teenage kid for a dangerous mission. What's even worse is Parker didn't even understand what the mission was even about, because the retconned phone footage in Homecoming revealed he wasn't even briefed what was going on. This is played for laughs, but it makes Stark look like a complete, irresponsible jackass. Why would Parker even have any ambitions to join the Avengers in the first place if the group is under heavy government scrutiny, I have no idea. His lack of awareness may prove he's a dumb kid, but again, it paints all the adults around him a bad light.

I can imagine fans would defend this by saying Spider-Man is more than capable of taking care of himself, but it's Stark's philosophy that's an issue here. It's so irresponsible, it goes against him taking any accountability in Civil War, in my book.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think the objection a lot of people have against ASM2 is that it's a textured character piece when people wanted an action fest. More Spider-Man, more quips, more swinging around the city, more fist fights, all that stuff.

"More quips"...it seems that's all what people care about nowadays, even if it's to the detriment of the story. In the past, characters making long-winded monologues used to be "epic". Now, characters making dumb jokes every five minutes is "fun".

They're all idiotic pop culture trends, if you ask me.

[Dagenspear]

Via digging, I know Homecoming retroactively shows Peter was video blogging in Civil War, right before he jumps out to reveal himself at the airport. If showing another side of past events is a crime, Homecoming and the MCU Spider-Man is guilty too. But y'know, this is completely different to showing another side of the Metropolis attack in BvS. Just as Marvel retroactively made Iron Man 2 Peter's first canon appearance. BvS builds upon MoS as well, because uh, it's a sequel. But all we get is double standards and semantics.

That's just a fun reference. It doesn't mean much of anything to the movies. People generally like the opening of BvS Metropolis scene as far as I know.

I'm less annoyed about retconning moments and events than I am by the way the MCU has included Spider-Man into the franchise. The way it's been handled has been unbelievably flimsy and it reeks nothing more but a blatant cash grab.

As I've said many times before, Spider-Man didn't need to be in Civil War. There's no reason why Tony Stark would need Peter Parker in the hunt for Bucky, never mind the fact Parker has no business in the dispute between the Avengers. But perhaps the biggest flaw with Spider-Man's appearance in Civil War is it undermines Tony Stark's arc. Despite burdened with guilt over the death of a young American kid who died during the Avengers' battle in Sokovia, here he goes recruiting a teenage kid for a dangerous mission. What's even worse is Parker didn't even understand what the mission was even about, because the retconned phone footage in Homecoming revealed he wasn't even briefed what was going on. This is played for laughs, but it makes Stark look like a complete, irresponsible jackass. Why would Parker even have any ambitions to join the Avengers in the first place if the group is under heavy government scrutiny, I have no idea. His lack of awareness may prove he's a dumb kid, but again, it paints all the adults around him a bad light.

I can imagine fans would defend this by saying Spider-Man is more than capable of taking care of himself, but it's Stark's philosophy that's an issue here. It's so irresponsible, it goes against him taking any accountability in Civil War, in my book.

Peter wouldn't be in danger. They're not trying to kill eachother in that scene.

[thecolorsblend]

Peter wouldn't be in danger. They're not trying to kill eachother in that scene.

Was that enough to save Rhodie from nearly dying in that scene?