Amazing Spider Man 2

[AJBopp]

I never compared the Spidey films with the Bond films in terms of content. Obviously we are dealing with two even different genres here. All I am saying is that the Bond movies change their actors and reboot stuff and people are okay with it. the current Bond films are a reboot as well and they made Bond more popular than he had been in decades. Obviously we had the Batman and Superman reboots as well now (Though there was a much larger time gap between those and the original films). The comics do different versions of the characters all the time, why should the movies be forced to wait years until they could do another version of something. Personally I could not be more glad that Sony did the Spidey reboot. Otherwise we would still be stuck with whiny emo Spider-Man who was nothing like the Spidey in the comics. Garfields version is such a better adaptation of the character and the tone of the Spider-man comics. This reboot should have been done 10 years ago IMO.

I do think the audience needs to be more accepting of superhero reboots. I also think the studios need to be more respectful of the properties being rebooted. WB had a great thing going with Batman, because even if it varied distinctly from the comics, there was an unmistakable respect for the source material, which was embraced while still making the necessary adjustments to allow the franchise to work to its full potential cinematically. It was a formula the was discarded to a large extent with Man Of Steel, which seems to be a movie that embraces Batman's legacy but showed no respect to Superman's. The same argument can be made for Ang Lee's Hulk. I'm not sure it can be quite so clearly made with Daredevil, which was done better than many people want to give it credit for - but in the end just wasn't very enjoyable.

As for Spider-man, I agree with Mets that re-introducing OsCorp was a miscalculation. I love many things about the new Spider-man movies, particularly his fighting and verbal style. But I have no interest at all in the tenuous relationship between every blasted character in the story and OsCorp. The Green Goblin isn't as essential to the Spider-man mythos as Joker is to Batman. Peter's character out of costume seems hesitant, as if the creators really know about Peter or are in agreement what his personal life is like and how he will react to certain circumstances. The only person who really seems to have a handle on it is Garfield, but he isn't given sufficient material to pull it off.

[protege]

I finally saw the movie, and for the most part, I liked it- I think I have a problem though with the fact that Peter's father developed the spider serum with his blood, then said Spider actually bites his kid with it. did I miss a step, or did it seem way too coincidental?

[TheDarman]

I finally saw the movie, and for the most part, I liked it- I think I have a problem though with the fact that Peter's father developed the spider serum with his blood, then said Spider actually bites his kid with it. did I miss a step, or did it seem way too coincidental?

It wasn't just one spider. All the spiders OsCorp developed were based off of Richard Parker's research and this contained his DNA as a starting point. Clearly Richard Parker is made out to be the smartest of the smartest because, despite twelve years of research, with some of the most brilliant minds anywhere, they couldn't figure out how to fix the spider situation.

[Keeper of the Crows]

GG absolutely is that essential. He is Spidey's greatest foe, esp after killing Gwen.



I don't think Batman views his role as "enforcing justice" so much as it is "protecting the people". Regardless of what happens ultimately to the crook, right there and right then he has stopped them from harming the citizenry.




That sparks a memory...a Batman villain who DID decide just that and furthermore ran his own private prison where he incarcerated pretty much ANYone who he thought was a crook of any kind.

Does anyone happen to recall the name of the guy? I know he appeared in one of the DCAU serieses at a minimum.

I think the villain you’re asking about is Lock-Up, first introduced in BTAS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-Up_(comics)

Also in regards to heroes killing, there’s also a matter of where to draw the line. If it is okay for Batman to kill a mass murdering psychopath like the Joker, what about other supervillains who kill fewer people? Why stop at supervillains? If Batman caught a suspected serial killer, should he kill him as well? What happens to the man’s due process? What if the suspect turned out to be innocent? Should Batman preemptively kill those who might one day kill many people, like Raas al Ghoul?

I think self-defense in the Walking Dead universe is a good example, especially when you’re dealing with a character like the Governor. So it’s not to say killing should never be portrayed in comics, but the Walking Dead universe is worlds apart from the MU.

[Captain Planet]

The movies was a let down for me. I really didn't like the Raimi movies so I didn't bother to see ASM in the theaters but when I did get around to renting it I loved it. I was hoping that ASM 2 was going to be the same for me but found it bloated and meandering.

It's like the producers or director couldn't decided which plot they liked best so they put a little of all of them in. While Elector was a cool villain Fox was a miscast and his whole origin was laughable. His whole pre-elector story line, including how he became electro felt like it would have fit with a 70s made for TV super hero movie.

There are several great movies in ASM 2 but sadly, they tried to fit them all in. I loved the scenes with Spider-man and even the scenes between Peter and Gwen but the rest was a mess. It also falls into the trap of telling a mostly Peter story while leaving Spider-man to the sidelines.

[Damos40]

I didn’t hate TASM2 to be honest. It was a light show just like I thought it would be, but there was a lot I liked about it. The actors, some of the CGI was good (some of it was #hit much like a video game), I thought the death scene was very well done. Stone and Garfield have a lot of great chemistry together. I also enjoyed how the film ended.

I didn’t enjoy the opening scene (shaky cam overload), and I thought the humor fell flat though.

Overall I gotta say, it blew past my expectations.

[ShadowDemon]

I think the villain you’re asking about is Lock-Up, first introduced in BTAS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-Up_(comics)

I think that is in fact, him...tyvm.

[jgprime]

Okay, please stop about Man of Steel. This is the Amazing Spider-Man 2 thread. Spidey didn't try to kill Electro, he had the full intent of stopping Electro and remember that at this point in the movie Electro's power grew to huge proportions and he was purely energy, and as Jamie Foxx said energy doesn't die, it just goes to other places. I really doubt Electro's dead.

Anyway I was scrolling through Brian Michael Bendis' Tumblr & I found this:

"blaqwing asked: Do the non marvel films studios ask you to consult on their movies like ASM 2 or XM: DoFP?"

Bendis responded:

"Sony had me come in and asked my opinion on some stuff before amazing Spiderman one went into production. I believe I may have been the tiebreaker between organic and mechanical web shooters but I have no proof. it’s just a feeling :-)

I have had no connection or interaction with anybody at Fox about any Marvel related stuff"

It's no surprise to me Bendis was involved in Amazing Spider-Man 1, basically since it's pretty much an adaptation of Ultimate Spider-Man. It'd be pretty interesting to see if they can bring in Bendis as some sort of consultant on Amazing Spider-Man 3 and they give him some more influence over the film. What is surprising to me is that he hasn't been involved in any of the Marvel Studios movies!

[AJBopp]

delete

/10 char

[Mister Mets]

54 posts on whether Spider-Man killed Electro, and what that would mean, were moved to a new thread.

[Scott Taylor]

It wasn't just one spider. All the spiders OsCorp developed were based off of Richard Parker's research and this contained his DNA as a starting point. Clearly Richard Parker is made out to be the smartest of the smartest because, despite twelve years of research, with some of the most brilliant minds anywhere, they couldn't figure out how to fix the spider situation.

Thats one of the weaknesses in movie that originally was introduced in the Bendis Ultimate Spider-Man stories. Bendis did kind of address it when he had Reed Richards figure out how to de-power Spider-Man and any of the spideryness in anyone. But that was just in one story and never really followed up. Really, there are tons of scientists in the Marvel Universe who could figure this stuff out. You just have to suspend disbelief here.

[Punisher007]

Plus, a lot of those super-genius don't exist in the film-verse. Sony doesn't have the rights to them.

[normanosborn]

This is some weird stuff. Apparently spoilers:

Norman's head was cryogenically saved.

end of spoilers WTF. http://gotchamovies.com/news/real-en...r-man-2-180348

Would have added a nice twist to the movie for sure.

[berserkerclaw]

Im a little late to the game, but ive just come in from seeing the film.......an Amazing,Spectacular,Sensational, film.

ive read review that were bad. IMO they were off base i loved it. Juat like i loved ASM 1.

Peter and Gwen together were great love the chemistry. The fact that the actors are actually dating in real life helps alot.
This is who Spidey really is. I love Garfields portrayal. The script held the right amount of gravity while bringing the humor unlike the Raimi films. the orginal trilogy didnt get Peter/Spider-Mans character.
"A god named Sparkles" was the best line lol.
Rhino Green Goblin and Electro were great and didnt pull a Spider-Man 3 with many villians and a nice set up for the next film.

Gwens story wAs handled great with a good connection to the comic stories with England.

[Tendrin]

I finally saw the movie, and for the most part, I liked it- I think I have a problem though with the fact that Peter's father developed the spider serum with his blood, then said Spider actually bites his kid with it. did I miss a step, or did it seem way too coincidental?

The stuff with Peter's Parents, and the blatant public power use of ASM #1 are my least favorite aspects of the reboot. They're simply awful. Well, that and /everything/ tying to OsCorp. This is what I meant when I once wrote about the 'drive to tie everything together into neat little bows'. Hence OsCorp being responsible /for all the supervillains/. I mean, really? They're not even gonna have Doc Ock have invented the tentacles?