The Amazing Spider-Man 2

[Replies From View]

Anybody bothering with the rebooted Spider-Man franchise?  I remember the first of these was pretty unloved here at the time.

Anyway here's a trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which will be coming out in a couple of months:  http://youtu.be/nbp3Ra3Yp74.  I was relatively unaware this was going on, if truth be told, compared to the first one which had us poring over many set photos in advance, wondering about the new costume and things like that.

I didn't particularly mind the first film; I thought it was more consciously setting the ground for an arc of sequels (holding back some of the origin stuff for later, for example) than Raimi's first Spider-Man outing, but there was definitely a strong air of pointlessness (and joylessness) about the whole venture.  And while I have a residual childhood appreciation of Spider-Man I'm not at all interested in other Marvel superheroes, so when this starts to feel like it's setting up the Seroxat Six or whatever, I'm going to lose all interest.


Anyway, there's the thread.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I think this one looks way better than the last one. Now that people have been reminded of the incredibly complicated story of how Spider-Man got to have the powers of a spider we can just get on with fighting outlandish supervillains and swinging around. Unfortunately they seem to have put all of that into the trailers, so the only thing the movie itself will add is the bits inbetween where Peter talks to Gwen about things.

The costume on this one is perfect though

[Thomas]

Unfortunately they seem to have put all of that into the trailers, so the only thing the movie itself will add is the bits inbetween where Peter talks to Gwen about things.

Yeah, I'm no avid Spider fan, but I was annoyed that

Spoiler alert

the origin of that glowing baddie, Electro,

[close]

was explained in one of the trailers.

I think Andrew Garfield is a good comic actor. Is some dialogue improvised? I've seen this bit, could be in a trailer -

Aunt May: Last time you did it, you turned everything blue and red!
Peter Parker: I was washing...
[stammers]
Peter Parker: the American flag! My flag!
Aunt May: No one washes the flag!
Peter Parker: Not any more.

And that final line there is interrupted by Aunt May. Peter's reaction to 'we've got no chimney' in one of the trailers is great, too.

[Replies From View]

I did wonder that.  Some of the dialogue between Parker and Stacey seems improvised, too.  Either that or they're just very good at acting like it's spontaneous and laughing.

[Thomas]

Apparently the first film had quite a bit of improvisation -

You know, originally when I was talking to [director] Marc [Webb], because I was wondering why he was making a giant blockbuster, he was telling me about how he wanted to do all this improvisation and character study, which they almost never do in these big-budget action movies. So a lot of the stuff in the movie, we would do the scripted version once, and then five, six, seven more takes where we could play around — which, again, is unheard of in these kinds of movies.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/the-amazing-spider-man-denis-leary-interview.html

I think Emma Stone is a good comic actor, too. Not a bad pairing.

[Replies From View]

Yeah, I'm no avid Spider fan, but I was annoyed that

Spoiler alert

the origin of that glowing baddie, Electro,

[close]

was explained in one of the trailers.

Usually the same kind of idea for each baddy, though.  Powers of sand?  Fell in some rogue sand and got whisked up with it for a bit.  Powers of elastic?  Probably fell in some rogue silly putty and was pounded up with it for a bit.  Powers of electricity? 

Spoiler alert

Yeah, basically.

[close]

[Thomas]

Oh yeah, all that of course, but I mean the fact that

Spoiler alert

Spider-Man saves some fella in the street, and then that same fella decides to become the villain.

[close]

I go into these things with very little actor-awareness, so I wouldn't have realised they were the same guy until watching the story unfold.

[Tiny Poster]

Yeah, I'm no avid Spider fan, but I was annoyed that

Spoiler alert

the origin of that glowing baddie, Electro,

[close]

was explained in one of the trailers.

I think Andrew Garfield is a good comic actor. Is some dialogue improvised? I've seen this bit, could be in a trailer -

And that final line there is interrupted by Aunt May. Peter's reaction to 'we've got no chimney' in one of the trailers is great, too.

I'm hoping that washing machine bit is improvised, because when two colours run they mix together. That really annoyed me, along with Electro's entire story arc being in the trailer.

[Replies From View]

Also washing anything with red turns those things pink, not red.

They should think it through more next time.  Improvisation?  Improvisatwrong, more like.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I thought the first film was very good, captured the comic book a lot better than the Sam Raimi ones, which I thought were decent at the time but watching them recently seemed quite bad.

Anyway,  Felicity Jones is going to be wearing a costume in this film (possibly as Black Cat), that is reason enough for me to see it.

[Tiny Poster]

Andrew Garfield was great in the first one (and very eerie to see him playing someone half his age so accurately) but the rest was a bit of a wash compared to the Marvel studio films. The weakest element was probably the consistently miscast Rhys Ifans - his Lizard voice was fucking ridiculous and theatrical - and not in the "so bonkers it works" Bane way.

[SavageHedgehog]

The marketing for this is a bit over the map; the main trailer I keep showing in cinemas reveals next to nothing about the plot, whereas the longish one I saw online (as mentioned above) seems to give away everything it possibly could about this Electro geezer. But I know next to nothing about Paul Giamatti's Rhino character.

[eluc55]

Rhino's

Spoiler alert

only in it for five minutes, or something like that

[close]

. Presumably

Spoiler alert

the film opens with a fight between him and spider man

[close]

.

They've definitely overplayed the marketing, though. If you'd seen all the trailers, you can pretty much piece the entire film together from it and they must have released about six trailers now, if you include the international ones with new material in them.

I mean, the film looks like great fun and I'm going to see it off back of that brilliant first trailer. But I'm really sick of trailers, photos, previews, watchable scenes, reviews of the first 30-40 minutes and all the rest. I honestly can't think of a film that's had such a heavy promotional push - even compared to other superhero blockbusters.  I've avoided watching some of it. But the trailers alone have given away far too much.

[Tiny Poster]

If they're doing a

Spoiler alert

Sinister Six

[close]

movie, then maybe the

Spoiler alert

Rhino

[close]

just gets introduced in this.

[DrunkCountry]

My opinion of the first Amazing Spider-Man movie changed dramatically after watching all the blu-ray behind the scenes docs. Originally I didn't think much of it[nb]thought Rhys Ifans was fucking awful, overacting his dick into a twist, & just about stood Emma Stone whom I've always thought acts like she's been caught photographing something she's put up herself; Garfield was OK but he at least represented the trad. idea of Parker being a pretty puny looking runt[/nb], but after seeing how much effort they put into the production & the fact that most of the web-swinging was actually rather than digitally realised I was super impressed.  Re-watched it & saw it in an entirely different light. Think it's a top superhero comic movie, now, mostly on a technical side. It's a nice bit of eye candy. So, terribly excited by the sequel.  Electro is one of my favourite foes from the golden age of Spider-Man, so to Rhino, & I like what they appear to have done in updating the characters.  Not so sure about the Green Goblin, tho. Never been a huge fan of the Osborne dynastic super villain madness.  Throw in The Vulture & I'd be fanboy happy.  Very much intrigued by the chatter about a Sinister Six movie, also. I like comic book movies. I was a huge comic geek as a kid & spent 3yrs working in the Cardiff branch of Forbidden Planet. Fucking sue me.

[Tiny Poster]

Canny synchronicity from Marvel - the release the first issue of Amazing Spider-Man next month, heralding the return of Peter Parker after a year of Doctor Octopus inhabiting his body under the guise of the Superior Spider-Man (which has been great fun).

[BritishHobo]

Aw. I really enjoyed the first one. I'm pretty burned out on the whole superhero thing, but I felt that Garfield's performance and his chemistry with Emma Stone really elevated it and just made it a fun watch. They were a fucking joy together, much better than the turgid will-they-won't-they tedium with Mary-Jane in the Raimi films. When Peter admitted he's Spider-Man halfway through the movie, I was thrilled. The mere prospect of not being bogged down by uninteresting lies and arguments about his secret identity. I grinned like a fucking loon at the final scene where Peter

The story was a little flimsy, especially the villain's motivation (aren't they always), but I thought Rhys Ifans was suitably creepy, and the Lizard was a much more effective bad guy than the campy Power Ranger goblin in the Raimi film. And even though it was pretty much hitting the same beats as the original, I just found it a far more entertaining watch - plus the Oscorp stuff was intriguing enough.

It's a flawed movie, but one I just found really easy to get into, and once I did I had a great time. That's more than I can say for any of the Thor/Captain America movies. Been looking forward to the sequel for ages, which of course means it's going to fall completely short of my impossible expectations, and I'll hate it.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I just saw this[nb]At least I think I did. It's so unmemorable.[/nb] and it was really pretty rubbish.

I too didn't mind the previous one - I got the impression that a lot of the hate directed at it was more to do with the blatantly cynical reasons for its existence, and less with the film itself. It was no classic, but it was amusing enough and I remember thinking that, in some ways, it was better than the Raimi original.

This one, however, was just a boring, plotless, personality free mess.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

The idea that we're living in a world where Iron Man is the poster child for insanely successful Marvel movies whereas Spiderman's in the doldrums, boggles my mind.

[Urinal Cake]

The idea that we're living in a world where Iron Man is the poster child for insanely successful Marvel movies whereas Spiderman's in the doldrums, boggles my mind.

I think it has to do more with the protagonists (and villains) rather than the quality of the movies themselves. Parker is a teenagerish loser while Stark is older, smart alec, millionaire playboy. The second is going to appeal to the general public more. Spider-Man seems to face villains who have a personal score while Iron Man races to save the fate of the whole world.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I think those are the exact reasons why Spider-Man should be more popular!

[SavageHedgehog]

It's a lot of fun, but boy is it a mess, and exhausting. I'm not sure I'd agree it's plotless (although it is ultimately pretty shallow), I'd say there's far too much plot in there for one movie. One storyline comes to a halt as another one picks up for a few minutes, only for the film to then come back to another plot you'd forgotten about, and all the while they want you to stay invested in the central romance too. It seems to climax about five times; the only reason I knew it hadn't ended after one big battle scene which would have been the conclusion of another movie was because I knew there was a lot from the trailers still to come. I'd say Electro, who has been the focus of much of the marketing, ends up getting the shortest shrift. I wasn't the biggest fan of the Rami films (enjoyed this a lot more) but at least their tragic villains genuinely felt a bit tragic; this genuinely sad figure turns into a one-dimensional villain almost as soon as he's formed (

Spoiler alert

and is disposed of rather unceremoniously

[close]

). It would be setting off unnecessary alarm bells to say this was this generation's Batman Forever, but it does lean that way.

None of this matters if you're just looking for a fun time, which I was and which I got. But they may find that they've rebooted a franchise only to end up at the same point again almost immediately.

[Replies From View]

Although to be honest I'm not sure exactly what position they were in after the third Raimi film; I just felt that they ran out of meaningful story arc and were just chucking villains in, and that's probably how it would have continued if Raimi had done a fourth film.

I haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, but I get the feeling they're striving to make a more a cohesively planned trilogy than Raimi's effort, that ultimately sets the franchise up with more story opportunities after the third film.  It might not really matter how one-dimensional the villains are in a single film as long as these larger plot strands are dealt with effectively.  What killed Raimi's third film for me is stuff like "the butler saw everything but didn't say so before", and I suspect this reboot will steer clear of such half-arsed plot resolutions.

[phantom_power]

I think Iron Man succeeds where Spiderman fails is that it gets to the heart of the character. As do all of the proper Marvel films. It would be interesting to see what Marvel would do with Spiderman if it came back into the fold properly.

[SavageHedgehog]

I haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, but I get the feeling they're striving to make a more a cohesively planned trilogy than Raimi's effort, that ultimately sets the franchise up with more story opportunities after the third film.  It might not really matter how one-dimensional the villains are in a single film as long as these larger plot strands are dealt with effectively.

Hmm, I don't know this is a film that I've paid to see now and will probably have sequels to come a few years down the line, I'd rather get a really great Spider-Man film now than a pretty good one that tries to ensure ones that they hope to make in the future will be of similar quality.

[madhair60]

Can anyone who's seen this film tell me if there's any fights in it?

[Urinal Cake]

Although to be honest I'm not sure exactly what position they were in after the third Raimi film; I just felt that they ran out of meaningful story arc and were just chucking villains in, and that's probably how it would have continued if Raimi had done a fourth film.

Studio influence:

Raimi wanted another villain, and Ben Kingsley was involved in negotiations to play the Vulture before the character was cut.[9] Producer Avi Arad convinced Raimi to include Venom, a character whose perceived "lack of humanity" had initially been criticized by Sam Raimi.[14] Venom's alter-ego, Eddie Brock, already had a minor role in the script.[15] Arad told the director that Venom had a strong fan base, so Raimi included the character to please them,[12] and even began to appreciate the character himself.[14] The film's version of the character is an amalgamation of Venom stories. Eddie Brock, Jr., the human part of Venom, serves as a mirror to Peter Parker, with both characters having similar jobs and romantic interests.[14] Brock's actions as a journalist in Spider-Man 3 also represent contemporary themes of paparazzi and tabloid journalism.[16] The producers also suggested adding rival love interest Gwen Stacy, filling in an "other girl" type that Raimi already created.[12] With so many additions, Sargent soon found his script so complex that he considered splitting it into two films, but abandoned the idea when he could not create a successful intermediate climax.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_3

Because it never made any sense teaming a golden age villain with a 90's X-treme villain.

I think Raimi's Parker had enough pathos maybe he made him a bit too pathetic for most people's tastes but I prefer him to Garfield's sk8r boi shit.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I think after Iron Man 2 Marvel realised that they can't just make films which are essentially adverts for films that haven't been made yet, and that it's possible to plan multi-movie arcs without doing that. Nobody else should have made that mistake again and yet here we are!

Although I haven't seen the new Spider-Man yet so fuck knows what I'm talking about.

[SavageHedgehog]

It's definitely not as bad on that front as Iron Man 2, it does work as a self-contained film, just one that's trying to fit a lot of plots in

[phantom_power]

There does seem to be a fundamental difference between how Avi Arad produces films and Kevin Feige. Feige seems to have a much more collaborative role that also allows a writer and director to do their own thing while helping fit that into the overall framework. Arad seems to have a much more traditional meddling producer role.