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

[Dagenspear]

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?

That was friendly fire. Your argument may be that for Tony to not think about that is reckless in and of itself, but I'd say that that's not OOC for him.

[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?

That was friendly fire. Your argument may be that for Tony to not think about that is reckless in and of itself, but I'd say that that's not OOC for him.

Friendly fire? Rhodie would've been just as dead as if it wasn't friendly fire. Peter didn't get killed or seriously injured mostly by luck.

[The Laughing Fish]

Friendly fire? Rhodie would've been just as dead as if it wasn't friendly fire. Peter didn't get killed or seriously injured mostly by luck.

Exactly, and it overlooks the fact that War Machine got permanently crippled because of the Avengers' reckless infighting. Never mind the fact they caused tons of property damage to the rest of the airport, but who cares about accountability in a comic book movie, right? Even though this movie was the one that brought it up in the first place.

There's no other nice way to put this, but this version of Spider-Man is an avatar to the die-hard, childish fanboys who imagine how cool it would be to live in the MCU.

[The Laughing Fish]

Does any remember the rumours of the Oscorp Tower building from The Amazing Spider-Man movies was supposed to appear in the first Avengers movie?

Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/15/a-spider-manavengers-crossover-almost-happened

It does make me wonder how Marc Webb's films could've tied in with the rest of the MCU. Maybe TASM2 could've been rewritten as Peter assumes permanent retirement following Gwen Stacy's death, and then Andrew Garfield would make his third movie appearance in Civil War, and Tony Stark helps Peter to deal with his guilt and encourage him to become Spider-Man again. Maybe the direction could've been Manhattan has become such a violent hellhole ever since Spider-Man has disappeared, and Stark, knowing the Avengers can't sort out crime in every metropolitan city, convinces Peter to return.

Mind you, I still don't think Spider-Man being introduced in Civil War make a lot of sense, and quite frankly, I think it's a little ironic that people were criticising for a Spider-Man reboot five years after the third Raimi movie but suddenly began to look forward to the character joining the MCU. But if I had to choose, I would've just continued the Webb series.

[Edd Grayson]

Mind you, I still don't think Spider-Man being introduced in Civil War make a lot of sense, and quite frankly, I think it's a little ironic that people were criticising for a Spider-Man reboot five years after the third Raimi movie but suddenly began to look forward to the character joining the MCU. But if I had to choose, I would've just continued the Webb series.

We're probably in the minority but I would've done the same. I didn't have any major problems with TASM2 and I honestly find it more memorable than Homecoming.

[thecolorsblend]

But if I had to choose, I would've just continued the Webb series.

We're probably in the minority but I would've done the same.

Now we're three.

[The Laughing Fish]

We're probably in the minority but I would've done the same. I didn't have any major problems with TASM2 and I honestly find it more memorable than Homecoming.

The Webb films have their own faults, such as retreading on familiar ground with the origin story and ordinary villains, but its biggest strength was the pairing between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. The chemistry between the two was great.

I got to be honest, I like Keaton as everybody else does on this forum, but I didn't think there was anything special about his portrayal as the Vulture at all. I thought he was a cliche Spider-Man movie villain, i.e. experiences some sort of injustice which motivates to become the villain, commits crimes for the sake of looking after his family, and has some redemptive, humane quality about him to make him sympathetic. We've seen this already in the Raimi trilogy and TASM1. There's nothing particularly new about this character.

As a matter of fact, the Vulture's story does retread a lot of material from Willem Defoe's Green Goblin:

• Getting screwed over by people in a position of authority - Norman Osborne gets voted out of his own company, Adrian Toomes's job to clean up the city taken away because of Stark starting up Damage Control.
• Like Osborne, Toomes figures out Peter is Spider-Man.
• Toomes tries to convince Peter from his point of view.

That's off the top of my head. One can say that Defoe was over-the-top sometimes, but I thought he was much better as the villain than Keaton. The MCU might not have a great list of villains, but is the bar really set that low to nominate Vulture as one of the best, if not THE best? I'd nominate Obadiah  Stane, Killmonger and even Aldrich Killian better than him.

[Dagenspear]

Exactly, and it overlooks the fact that War Machine got permanently crippled because of the Avengers' reckless infighting. Never mind the fact they caused tons of property damage to the rest of the airport, but who cares about accountability in a comic book movie, right? Even though this movie was the one that brought it up in the first place.

Rhodey got crippled because of Vision being emotional about Wanda, nothing else. Property damage doesn't mean much in this movie. It' about lives lost via collateral damage from avengers fighting villains.

There's no other nice way to put this, but this version of Spider-Man is an avatar to the die-hard, childish fanboys who imagine how cool it would be to live in the MCU.

That's not true as you describe it. People just find him entertaining to watch.

[The Dark Knight]

TLF is dead right, and again, Dagen is dead wrong. This overrated Spider-Man was all about impressing Tony Stark Raving Mad. He was saving people and fighting crime just so he could join the Avengers. This young punk didn't have the words of wisdom of Ben in his mind...and Ben wasn't even mentioned, which was a big mistake. He's just all about being selfish.  By that point in his career he should've been well and truly over that. But he wasn't.

I won't be seeing the film, but Hollandman 2 should film in London. No need to hire extras either.



"You found my weakness, it's small BIG knives."

[Dagenspear]

TLF is dead right, and again, Dagen is dead wrong. This overrated Spider-Man was all about impressing Tony Stark Raving Mad. He was saving people and fighting crime just so he could join the Avengers. This young punk didn't have the words of wisdom of Ben in his mind...and Ben wasn't even mentioned, which was a big mistake. He's just all about being selfish.  By that point in his career he should've been well and truly over that. But he wasn't.

I won't be seeing the film, but Hollandman 2 should film in London. No need to hire extras either.

Peter was saving people before that. It wasn't about Stark. Peter in the movie did want to join the Avengers, but that was more an ambition thing in being a bigger and better hero. The movie seems to be more or less about humility and wants to portray Peter as someone who becomes a peace with his limits. It wasn't being selfish. Ben was mentioned. In the original comic Ben didn't give words of wisdom and died, with Peter taking in that lesson. That's likely what this was, because Peter was shown to have the responsibility lesson in CW.