Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 82 of 82
  1. #76
    Spectacular Member primenumber101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    223

    Default

    TASM 2 has the same problem that many of MCU films from first phase has: too much focuses on setting up the next movies(TASM and sequels, Avengers) that they didn't bother to focus on quality of the actual movie itself. The movie has too much convoluted plot points that shove it into altogether, with handful of them are there to set up the cinematic universe.

    The BTS fiasco wasn't helping. From what I remember, Andrew Garfield was very dissatisfied with how the movie was turned out and frustrated due to all the meddling from higher up. The Sony also tried to develop many spin-off movies that starring side characters, such as Black Cat and Silver Sable (Silver & Black), Sinister Six, Venom, Morbius, etc. With many of them didn't came to fruition at that time due to constant changing of the cast and developers.

    One of the developing storyline of TASM 3 was beyond idiotic, with Peter was supposed to somehow resurrect death people, such Gwen and her dad, with some formula. and there was actual talk about making film that starring Aunt May as the spy when she was young.

    The Hacking incident that leaked many of Sony's project was the final nail of the coffin as it revealed that Sony did contacted with Marvel to discuss about possibilities for add Spider-Man on MCU.

  2. #77
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    928

    Default

    They are just made movies and came out way too soon after the Raimi trilogy. That original trilogy is still beloved today, but outside of Andrew Garfield (who after seeing NWH. yeah he is the best Spider-Man), no one ever really talks about the Webb Duology.
    I guess the first movie had the added bonus that the Lizard's sole plan was to turn everyone into Lizards. The problem with it was that it was going for a sixties level threat against the tone of The Dark Knight, it just doesn't work.

    The second movie was the bigger offender however, setting up way too much and featuring an overabundance of villains, most of whom are rushed into the film.

    I don't hate either of them, in fact there are things in them I like. In many respects, they make better Spider-Man movies than the MCU series (at least the first two), but as experiences themselves, I tend to watch them last.

    I guess NWH redeemed them a little, at least we now know where Garfield is leading to. And I will say his Spider-Man certainly gets Spider-Man's heart. They just aren't very fun to watch.

  3. #78
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    30,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil1 View Post
    I have always found it inexplicable that so many people dig their heels in about loving these movies,

    I feel the same way about people who act like they're some crime against cinema.

    people who defend them seem to just love him and thus overlook how ghastly the quality of the movies are, while things like Spider-Man 3, Daredevil, Ang Lee's Hulk, and on and on never get a pass.
    Spider-Man 3 has had its defenders since the film came out. Ang Lee's Hulk wasn't hated that much and got a much better reception than the MCU's go at a Hulk movie.

    His defenders seem to be young zoomer kids who grew up with these disasters and haven't formed critical thinking yet,
    I'm sure a lot of people say the same thing about those who prefer the Raimi or MCU films.

    He's not even playing Ultimate Peter, who wasn't so... annoying.
    I think your memory of Ultimate Spider-Man might be betraying you. Ultimate Peter practically made a career out of being annoying.

    Yeah, I guess if you like Dan Slott's writing, he's pretty much spot on. They're adapting pretty much no era from the comics except the idea Marvel has been trying to push of the character in media for the last 15 years of a hyperactive manchild. That's not how I see Peter, and I'll take less humor if that's the trade off.
    ASM Peter is a teenager not an adult. Calling him a hyperactive manchild doesn't work. Even if he were an adult, he wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the comic version of Peter has been before and after OMD.

    But even if you didn't think Tobey Maguire quite nailed it, the Raimi films capture the tone of classic Spider-Man pretty perfectly. Things like mechanical web shooters and smarts quips do not a Spider-Man make, but the movies around these trappings are just dire. Beyond the horrific plots, is your idea of the tone a Spider-Man movie should have that of a Millennial Twilight/Electronic Dance Music Sony set-up for a universe to keep the film rights? Just because it got a few more gags in, really? Nobody is claiming Superman 4 "isn't so bad" just because Reeve is in it... just as something like Batman Forever is needlessly crapped on, these movies are inexplicably overpraised beyond what they ever deserved, and the difference is old boomers didn't have to listen to anyone saying "Batman & Robin needs to be reevaluated, ride or die on George Clooney" by people who saw them as kids, everyone just kept quiet and let it go... I found it a little classless when Christian Bale made fun of the bat-nipples to prop up the Nolan films at the time, but how I wish they made fun of TASM movies at this point instead of this pretending they weren't as bad as they truly are.
    This sounds like you're just mad that people have the audacity to like or not hate a movie as viscerally as you do. No one is under any obligation to keep quiet about a film they or bash one you hate for your sake.

    Here's the thing, I like all three Spider-Man movie series. I will admit all three have their flaws, but let's not pretend one was ever more faithful than the other at adapting a long-running comic series that has gone through multiple changes over time and will probably still be around long after anyone on this board has passed on to the next world.

  4. #79
    Incredible Member Spidey_62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    799

    Default

    Watched ASM1 again recently and it's just decent, I think it's most glaring problem is that it doesn't do anything exceptionally well and it takes too long to get going. There's nothing truly standout and iconic as a movie here. The Lizard absolutely sucks in it, his plan is goofier than anything in the Raimi movies yet the movie tries to take itself seriously and more grounded otherwise up till and past there. Out of all the things you could do with the Lizard, they did the least interesting things possible. I like the movie still and respect what it was trying to go for with the focus on Peter being an orphan with the parents stuff but that stuff is just not interesting and the payoff later is not good at all. Peter and Gwen are the obvious highlight and the character interactions overall are a joy to watch, especially with getting the more shut-out and standoffish Peter, Andrew really highlighted other sides to the character in worthwhile ways.

  5. #80
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    8,891

    Default

    Really didn't like the movies that much when I first saw them, but, after re-seeing them before No Way Home, I can't say that I hate them. In fact, it's a shame how a good cast and some decent ideas never came together.

    I think the key problems with the films are the writing (lot of loose ends, stuff that's badly set up, material that should've been cut, deleted scenes that should've been left in, and other plot holes), the emphasis on setting up sequels at the expense of the movie working on its own terms, and how the Powers That Be didn't seen to get how Spidey works (trying to make the character a chosen one of sorts really undercuts the foundation of who Spidey is). Also thought Gwen was a really flat and underdeveloped character and deserved more (to be fair girlfriend characters in superhero movies are often only defined as being the girlfriend, but, after the Raimi movies gave their leading lady depth beyond that, it would've been nice to see the next take at least equal that, if not try to push the envelope further).

    So, I'm overall glad that we got the MCU Spidey instead, but still, the wasted potential of the ASM movies is something to be remembered.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  6. #81
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,957

    Default

    I can understand their appeal. It's silly to say that Garfield and Stone are objectively the best actors, but many viewers feel they had good chemistry, and they are the most acclaimed Spider-Man leads. Stone has an Oscar, and Garfield's probably getting a second nomination, in addition to getting great notices for No Way Home.

    But there are also some stuff that pissed off a lot of viewers.

    One problem is that the movies retreaded territory from earlier films. Amazing Spider-Man was another take on the origin, with a main villain similar to the Green Goblin (a scientist in Peter Parker's orbit who transformed into a monster, and talked with his alter ego.) The sequel had an another take on the Goblins and the downfall of Harry Osborn.

    There were a lot of changes to the films during production, as evident by the differences between trailers and the final product, as well as significant deleted scenes (check Youtube for the clip of Peter's encounter with his father.)

    The mystery of Peter's parents was set-up and didn't come to a satisfying conclusion. Many plot points were left unresolved, and there's a sense the writers didn't know the answers given all the changes to the movies.

    Personally, I thought they were okay, but not on the level of the first two Raimi films, or the MCU films, or Into the Spiderverse for that matter.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  7. #82
    I'm at least a C-Lister! exile001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Mothcave
    Posts
    2,607

    Default

    The first movie was okay, but the second is just a flat out bad movie. Blame studio interference all you want but the foundation was cracked and broken before they waded in with the sledgehammers.

    My main issue with the first was that it felt like Webb wanted to make a cute coming of age drama and the Spider-man part was somehow an inconvenience. The Lizard and his descent/transformation didn't get enough screen time* to feel like a fleshed out character.

    ASM2 is a dumpster fire and not even so bad it's good. It's just a frustrating mess and No Way Home did more for Garfield's Spider-man than that entire second movie. Also, Webb filmed a scene with Peter's father being alive because that awful movie doesn't have enough bullshit going on already with its 47 plot lines.

    I'm that one guy who likes Paul Giamatti's Rhino and don't get why people are pissed we didn't see the fight. It's a standard framing device to cut as the hero leaps into battle and they used Rhino because he's a nothing villain (sorry Rhino fans but... yeah. He's D-list in terms of impact).

    *to be fair, this is a problem with pretty much all comic book movies and especially the MCU.
    Theorising that it could travel within its own timeline, DC stepped into the Crisis accelerator and vanished. DC awoke to find itself trapped in the past, facing mirror images that were not its own, and driven by editorial to change history *for the better* *to be more cohesive* *Silver Age nostalgia* *for the sake of it*. And so DC finds itself leaping from Crisis to Crisis, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap will be to a perfect DC Universe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •