Amazing Spiderman 2

[Totenkindly]

Well, that's embarrassing.

The movie started out around 76% on RT with enough reviews for them to do a positive writeup. (It had somewhere around 50-60 reviews at the time.) Normally the score might move a bit after that point, but the overall gist says the same.

This morning, with twice that number of reviews in, it's dropped to 58%.

Still plan to see it anyway, but... RT got burned. Rather amusing.




I rewatched the first one on Tuesday. Some people didn't like it, but in general I did; I like how Garfield took another valid spin on the character rather than just playing into Maguire's take.

 

[Cloudpuppy]

I also liked how Garfield played the character, overall, I really liked the movie.

 

[The Ü™]

While the cast is outstanding and the special effects are top-notch, the latest installment of the Spidey saga suffers from an unfocused narrative and an overabundance of characters.

(A) They must've really made improvements to the fx shots in the trailers...because they looked downright atrocious.

(B) Sounds like they didn't learn anything from Spider-Man 3.

 

[Totenkindly]

I just saw it tonight (IMAX 3D), and I'm gonna state bullshit on much of the criticisms.

No, it's not a four-star movie... but is it worth seeing? Yes. (I don't understand what some critics thought was so bad that it made a "bad" movie rather than a movie that was enjoyable to watch. It's not a "no." Although maybe they just don't like superhero movies?)

And yes, the highlights of the movie are the actions sequences, plus pretty much anytime that Garfield, DeHaan, Stone, and/or Fields are interacting on the screen. The rapport is pretty incredible, that was worth seeing all on its own. They also do some of the Spiderman-swinging footage as if he's holding the camera, so you're almost seeing what he sees; and yes, U, you're probably more particular about your 3D than I am, based on what I've seen you comment on in the past, but I liked it.

I didn't find the characters difficult at all to follow. As far as three villains go, they're only ever on "one at a time" and there's no issues -- Electro is the primary villain, and Green Goblin doesn't come into until after that is resolved and you think you can relax (and you're tracking Osbourne's progress throughout the movie, so there is no surprise with it)... and the Rhino isn't really a character in the movie, he's like the Underminer who appears in the last 30 seconds of the Incredibles.... he was never meant to be a "real" character, he functions exactly the same as the Underminer did.

They also tied together the motivations of each of the main characters, especially the villains. It all syncs up, no one's doing something "just to be a creep" -- it's like watching dominos fall after the first half of the movie has been set up. The plot didn't have a LOT to it... but in that sense neither did Spiderman 2.

Finally, if you are all acquainted with the comic-book history, I'm not going to say how the movie plays out, but they do a pretty good job of going back and forth on it until the very end -- it had me guessing.

The Easter Egg clip in the credits, though, is pretty dumb. It's confusing to understand what is happening, and doesn't seem to be very significant at the moment.

I would have liked to have seen more of Chris Cooper. He's a tremendous actor, and I didn't think he got a lot to play with here.

And I agree with complaints about the Kafka guy -- what a stupid cliche, they could have done far better.

EDIT: Looks like I need to eat a little crow on the Kafka thing, since I didn't read the early runs of Spider-Man (i.e., 60's -> early 70's): I just saw this on Wiki regarding Harry Osbourne:

...Spider-Man pushes for Harry to get psychiatric treatment from Dr. Ashley Kafka, but he is ultimately transferred to the Vault.[6] However, the state is unable to put together a sufficient case against Harry, and after just a few weeks in prison he is released.[7]

The character might have been treated differently, but they swiped the name from the comic.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh, they ran the Godzilla trailer. That was pretty awesome in IMAX 3D.
And they really avoid showing a lot -- it's cut together nicely that way.

 

[SensEye]

I rewatched the first one on Tuesday. Some people didn't like it, but in general I did; I like how Garfield took another valid spin on the character rather than just playing into Maguire's take.

I just saw if for the first time this past weekend. The movie itself was OK, but I saw no advantage or necessity for a re-boot. So that aspect seemed like a Hollywood cop out. It's like they didn't have enough material for a spiderman vs sandman stand alone sequel, so they slapped a new coat of paint on the origination story and told it again for the first half the movie.

 

[Totenkindly]

I just saw if for the first time this past weekend. The movie itself was OK, but I saw no advantage or necessity for a re-boot. So that aspect seemed like a Hollywood cop out. It's like they didn't have enough material for a spiderman vs sandman stand alone sequel, so they slapped a new coat of paint on the origination story and told it again for the first half the movie.

Well, if you want to be fair, they're only doing what the comic book itself has done over and over and over again. I mean, what are they doing now? Rebooting Amazing Spiderman AGAIN? This time with someone else also being bitten by the same spider ("Silk"), to add more to the mix?

I find the comics -- the source -- to be far worse.

I thought Garfield's spin was valuable. The Maguire version of Spidey seemed to capture the INFP idealistic aspect of Peter Parker; Garfield's version focuses on the ISTP-like wisecracking version that Raimi's movies ignored, and also reestablished that Peter really is quite smart in the techs and sciences. Put them together, you get more of a whole picture of Spiderman.

Also don't think the Sandman story had any more teeth. I think he had apologized for his crimes to Spiderman, then let himself dissipate or something. Whether or not he's alive, the motive no longer seemed to be there to make him a villain. It was about time they actually did something with Curt Connors; he shows up in the Raimi movies (played by Dylan Baker) but they don't do anything with him, Rhys Ifans' version even while in human form was far more remarkable.

 

[SensEye]

Well, if you want to be fair, they're only doing what the comic book itself has done over and over and over again. I mean, what are they doing now? Rebooting Amazing Spiderman AGAIN? This time with someone else also being bitten by the same spider ("Silk"), to add more to the mix?

I find the comics -- the source -- to be far worse.

I thought Garfield's spin was valuable...

I have to confess having tuned out of comic book culture decades back, so I am stuck in time with the original story lines for most of the famous superhero's. However, I am aware there have been lots of reboots/rewrites with dramatically different story lines across the whole spectrum.

I agree with you on preferring the nature of Garfield's spin more than the original, but not to the point of justifying a re-boot. Again, I didn't mind the reboot, it just seemed like too much deja-vu since it was basically the original all over again with a few minor mods (slightly different Peter, different girl, different villain).

PS> Got my villains confused, I meant The Lizard (not Sandman) in the reboot.

 

[The Ü™]

Phony Imageworks at its finest, and why didn't they just call this Infamous: The Movie?

The best part of my evening is that the fire alarm went off in the theater (I guess they were testing it), and I got a free movie pass because of it.

 

[The Ü™]

Well, since I got a moment, I might as well talk about the movie a little more.

Firstly, if Captain America 2 was the comic book movie that one-upped the likes of Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, Batman Begins, and The Avengers, then The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the Fantastic Four that we have to deal with in between.

This movie was a mess, and Electro (AKA Infamous) was unbelievably lame. Why the hell did he become a villain other than the script dictating that he do so? Chris Cooper's Norman Osborn didn't even need to be in the movie. Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborn/Green Goblin was unnecessary (been there, done that), and the scene with Rhino could've easily been reserved for the third part.

The best action sequence in the movie had to be the opening chase, but it still feels like I've been here before.

Overall, this reboot series is still unnecessary. There was no reason they couldn't continue the Sam Raimi timeline with different actors. Andrew Garfield is a decent Spider-Man, but an abysmal Peter Parker. Where Tobey Maguire was brilliant playing Parker as an awkward nerd, Andrew Garfield plays him as a hipster that I just want to punch in the face.

 

[Totenkindly]

Sounds like it's possible that the disappointments of this movie weren't all Webb's fault.

here's a quote from James Horner, who didn't end up scoring AS2:

“[Director Marc Webb] was very inexperienced and he and I had a very good relationship and the producers had their own opinion. And they didn’t want his input. And then Sony had their own, they just wanted action. To me, the whole thing about doing the first movie was I liked the director and there was a chance to write something for the two lead characters and then she dies in the next movie. But the next movie ended up being so terrible, I didn’t want to do it. It was just dreadful.”

IOW... as the cliche might go... freaking execs bolluxed the pic.

James Horner on why he didn't return for The Amazing Spider-Man 2: "It was just dreadful" - Flickering Myth


EDIT: This also is in the trivia section of the IMDB page for the movie:

Following the mixed critical and audience reaction to the film, star Andrew Garfield revealed that the screen-story had undergone major rewrites and restructuring during production. The original script focused more on the relationship between Gwen Stacey and Peter Parker, as well as the evolution of Max Dillion into the psychotic Electro and Harry Osbourn's descent into madness. During production at the behest of Sony studios, the story underwent a major overhaul to introduce a number of additional characters from the Spider-Man mythos, including Rhino, Black Cat, Dr. Kafka, with allusions to Mysterio, Vulture, Dr. Octopus, and Kraven the Hunter, among others with the hopes of creating a line of spin-off films. For his part, Garfield himself expressed his own disappointment at the deviation from the original story.

Jackasses. They got ahead of themselves in order to compete with the Avengers (which took quite a number of films to "build up" the mythos), and in the process destroyed the possibilities of getting to where they wanted to go. The original concept sounds like it would have been a far more enduring movie and more like something Webb would have come up with.

Here's also a list of some of the items that supposedly differed. At least one shows up as Deleted Scenes. I don't think they were all great ideas, but they show some significant differences:

The original plot outline by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman has the following differences from the film: •While the Mary Jane Watson sequences were shot but excluded from the final film, the script establishes Mary Jane as Peter's next door neighbor who has an alcoholic, abusive father, sports a Spider-man tattoo, works as a waitress, and builds motorcycles in her spare time. At one point Peter confronts her father to lay off her. When Gwen is planning to head to London, she gives a piece of dating advice to Mary Jane, telling her to date a nerd, hence signaling her go ahead and get Peter.


•Max originally lives with his handicapped mother at home and once he returned home as Electro, he noticed that his mother was standing and got paid a hefty compensation by Oscorp. He gets angry and begins using his powers, which is what sets off his confrontation with the police in Times Square, not a weird moment where he just starts sucking on electrical wires for no reason.


•J. Jonah Jameson and Robbie Robertson from the Daily Bugle were to appear in the film, but director Marc Webb had difficulty of finding an actor that can better J.K. Simmons' performance in the Sam Raimi Spider-man trilogy. In the script Peter is a student at Empire State University, bringing his first Spider-Man pictures to Jameson, who gives him a tour of the Daily Bugle. Jameson complains that the Internet is killing the newspaper business; later, Spidey and Electro's first fight send them crashing through the Daily Bugle offices and the printing presses.


•Peter willingly gives his blood to help Harry. The Goblin suit is explained as something that was secretly built by Richard Parker for the crippled Norman Osborn. When Richard didn't give his blood to Norman, the suit was hidden in Norman's boathouse, only to be eventually found by Harry.


•Rather than 7 months, as the time period of the film takes place, it instead plays out in 18 months. The second act of the film jumps one year later after the graduation scene, making Peter's forlorn attitude towards Gwen cute instead of creepy, and it establishes that they're in college. This makes Gwen's application to Oxford more logical.


•Dr. Ratha from The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) was meant to reappear in this movie. Although his final scene in that movie left him in mortal peril, the writers insist that he survived that predicament. But Irrfan Khan was unavailable to reprise the role, so the character Donald Menken was introduced to engineer Harry's dismissal from Oscorp in Ratha's place. (Ratha was at one point intended to become the villain Proto-Goblin at some point in the series, but it is now doubtful that this will ever happen. So many different "Goblins" have already appeared in in the Spider-man movies that yet another one would seem redundant.)


•Rhino and Jorge, the little kid, originally do not appear.


•Gwen's death plays out similarly as in the finished film but while she's clinging on to her life, she tells Peter to never give up, echoing both an earlier talk she had with Mary Jane and George Stacy's dying words to Peter in the preceding film.


•Instead of Peter watching Gwen's graduation video at the end, his father Richard turns up alive, saying that he had been watching over Peter all these years he was pretending to be dead, and convinces him to become Spider-man again. Richard says the film's final line, "With great power comes great responsibility", hence providing a nice way of reintroducing Spidey's catchphrase into the new series. A living Richard was likely nixed for being too saccharine and contrary to an essential tenet of Spider-man's mythos, i.e. that he must achieve manhood on his own without any living father figure.

 

[Totenkindly]

Two Reasons Why Andrew Garfield Could Be Out As Spiderman -- Report - International Business Times

The recent Sony Pictures hacking revealed a third sequel for "The Amazing Spider-Man" was intentionally planned to be filmed with the collaboration of Marvel and Sony. However, it's believed producers want a fresh start with the movie including having the title role given to a new actor instead of to Andrew Garfield.

Latino Review's Kellvin Chavez claimed Marvel wants a clean slate if ever "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" will push through....Marvel wants a clean slate, apparently, and they are not interested in doing any more so-called "romance" movies but would rather "focus on the difficulties of being a teenager and a superhero with a romance side-story," Chavez said.

Additionally, Marvel was supposedly very intent on letting go of Andrew Garfield to reprise his role as Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man. Chavez didn't specify any details regarding the actor's casting. But according Mashable, Garfield had some previous "misdemeanours" way back in July that had allegedly displeased Sony's higher-ups.

"Garfield has been praised for his performance as Peter Parker, but his critical remarks that seemed to blame the studio for 'Amazing Spider-Man 2's' tepid box office and critical reception may have annoyed the wrong people," writer Christina Warren said.

Additionally, Garfield reportedly also failed to attend ("with less than an hour's notice") a Sony corporate dinner back in July. He was supposedly scheduled for a meeting with Sony CEO Kaz Hirai and other higher-ups. According to Warren his absence was considered as an "affront and slight by the company's Tokyo bosses." Thus, it's believed the actor's contract has officially been terminated and the recent hacking even further fuels this speculation...

Which is all kind of a shame because I thought his take was interesting, and from what I've read it does seem like Sony's production staff is to blame (in part for trying to accelerate a franchise to mirror Marvel's work and in the process fubar'ing the vehicle they had depended on to get them there). But Garfield wasn't too savvy in how he spoke about it, and then he apparently lost face with Sony execs....

 

[laterlazer]

Two Reasons Why Andrew Garfield Could Be Out As Spiderman -- Report - International Business Times



Which is all kind of a shame because I thought his take was interesting, and from what I've read it does seem like Sony's production staff is to blame (in part for trying to accelerate a franchise to mirror Marvel's work and in the process fubar'ing the vehicle they had depended on to get them there). But Garfield wasn't too savvy in how he spoke about it, and then he apparently lost face with Sony execs....

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nooooo.

What a waste too. They better not think of releasing any more Spider-man movies for another 10 years though then.