Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 04:29:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Started by Replies From View, March 27, 2014, 09:43:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Jerzy Bondov on April 17, 2014, 08:53:10 AM
I think those are the exact reasons why Spider-Man should be more popular!

Exactly! Peter Parker was created to have many of the same problems as his target audience, meaning a more identifiable character than some billionaire weapons tycoon or alien being. Parker has to juggle everyday commitments with super hero battles, whereas Tony Stark can just throw money at a problem, then jump into his tin can and press the 'win' button.

On the antagonist front, Spiderman has arguably the most iconic rosta of comic book super-villains outside of Batman.

I'm guessing much of the success is purely down to Robert Downey Jr. and his effortless charm.

I remember being baffled at the first Iron Man film. There was the classic set up for a hero journey and a character changing over the course of the movie, learning the error of his ways... then it never happened. He starts off an arrogant cunt, has his life changing experience that's supposed to make him realise he needs to be a better person... but no, he just remains an arrogant cunt, just with an even better weapon.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Urinal Cake on April 17, 2014, 03:13:31 AM
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.
I don't know. Peter Parker is clearly the more relateable character (in fact Tony Stark was intentionally designed to be a bit off-putting). The villain plots in both series are fairly similar - Iron Man's enemies all bear personal grudges against him, and Spidey fights to save the whole of New York.

I don't think there's anything inherent in the source material that means one series should be better than the other. This film just has a particularly poor script.

BritishHobo

Just to warn, there are MASSIVELY HEAVY SPOILERS THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS POST

I don't know why, but this one left me feeling really cold. I left the first film with a massive grin on my face, the only superhero movie that's ever made me do so. But the sequel... it was nowhere near as plot-heavy as Spider-Man 3, or even The Dark Knight Rises, but they clearly had so much to get through that the story beats felt pretty underdeveloped. Instead of leaving the Sinister Six set-up as a post-credit scene, they turned it into part of the ending, which had a backwards knock-on effect.
Spoiler alert
Gwen dying was already sort of unengaging, because it was just a quicker repeat of the first film's climax with her father. Everyone had been talking about her comic death for a long time, especially with the casting (and then removal) of Mary-Jane, so I'd hoped they were going to do something different and just for fuck's sake let him have a relatively happy relationship as a side-story for a few movies[nb]
Spoiler alert
Comic book films, you do not have to constantly throw a spanner in the works of any relationship the main character has. You're just repeating the same story over and over. Garfield and Stone had great chemistry, but it's been tossed off for a weak ending because that's just what must happen.
[close]
[/nb]. But it became very obvious it was going to happen when they started this whole plot about Gwen going to England, and Peter planned to go with her. Plus the repeated repeated references to his promise to Gwen's father.
[close]

ANYWAY
Spoiler alert
it was already sort of unengaging, but the immediate tonal shift made it much worse. They clearly wanted to have an uplifting ending, but as fans of a certain TV show well know, it is fucking jarring to kill off a love interest five minutes before the end and then compress the mourning period into the space of twenty seconds so you can get back to happy again. It needs to have weight. You can either kill off a character at the end, or you can have a swelling, upbeat ending. Not both. Especially when you've spent the whole first and second act reinforcing Peter's guilt about breaking his promise to Captain Stacy because he's terrified Gwen will get hurt if he doesn't stay away from her. He didn't stay away from her, and she died as well. That should bring on way more guilt than a montage.
[close]

I loved Dane DeHaan - he and Electro as a villainous team was great fun to watch. But again, the need to get him in prison and cackling about the Sinister Six left less room for either of their development. Both had interesting stories, but Electro's whole character was essentially dropped so they could kill him off with no fuss and set the stage for Harry's Goblin. Don't bother with a backstory that presents him as a fundamentally good guy who was ignored and only became a villain because of an accident, and the refusal of the police or Spider-Man supporters to see him as anything else, if you're not going to follow through with some sort of resolution. Don't set up a friendship with Spider-Man, and with Gwen Stacy, if you're just going to bonk him off.

As a result, both 'final boss' fights were really short, and seemed almost easy. I knew more was coming because Electro was dealt with so fast, but I wasn't expecting the fight with Harry to be over that quick. Again, this was because they wanted to both
Spoiler alert
kill Gwen, and end with a happy Spider-Man. Which... I already talked about.
[close]

In summary: fun, but I'm an overly-critical anus-tent. Three stars some funny bits.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

The bit with
Spoiler alert
the two planes on a collision course
[close]
struck me as really poor bit of writing. Even ignoring that there must be failsafes for that sort of situation, Spidey and Gwen had no idea it was going on, so it had no bearing on their actions.

And Peter is a stalker.

And that evil doctor would have been over the top even in the Raimi films.

BritishHobo

Yeah, that really stuck out as them realizing there wasn't quite enough at stake, or not enough excitement, so they had to cram something in. At best, it's a coincidence, because it's not like they were racing against time. They just happened to turn the power back on right before the planes collided. They might've taken five minutes longer if Spider-Man had swung around a bit more.

I also agree with you on the stalker thing. I love the chemistry between them, and their relationship. But it was a strange bit of dialogue, especially since he didn't specify he was just keeping an eye on her from the heights inbetween stopping criminals. He made it sound as if he was literally stalking her through the streets 'once a day, or more', and she was really touched!

"I'm gonna follow you everywhere, for the rest of my life."

Urinal Cake

#35
Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 17, 2014, 05:04:24 PM
I don't know. Peter Parker is clearly the more relateable character (in fact Tony Stark was intentionally designed to be a bit off-putting). The villain plots in both series are fairly similar - Iron Man's enemies all bear personal grudges against him, and Spidey fights to save the whole of New York.

I don't think there's anything inherent in the source material that means one series should be better than the other. This film just has a particularly poor script.
That's true but the kicker has been, 'If Iron Man fails this technology will be used by more bad guys'. Super hero films are about escapism, I mean yes the heroes have to be relatable but ultimately they have to be people we aspire to. It's like when CA goes to IM in Avengers 'Without the suit what are you?' and he answers, 'Genius, millionaire, playboy philanthropist'. People loved that shit and forget that CA essentially calls him a selfish asshole (which we know isn't quite true anyway because he'll redeem himself as a good guy).

Replies From View

I wish it wasn't necessary to pack loads of villains into a single film, and for that film to be those villains' only outing.  How about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have only Doctor Octopus and have The Amazing Spider-Man 5 be The Return of Doctor Octopus?  There's surely enough comic history in Spider-Man to not only ever make three films and then reboot.

Glebe

Saw it yesterday (been on a cinema binge this week)... the first one was no knockout, but it was fairly well done, though the spectre of 'cynical reboot' hung over it a bit. This was a bit of a train wreck. It started out well enough, the action scenes were decent and most of all the Peter/Gwen relationship stuff worked really well - but everything else was rushed, convoluted and silly... just completely unconvincing. By the time we get to the
Spoiler alert
tacked-on Rhino fight
[close]
I was thinking "fuck this shit".

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

I actually think the way the film uses
Spoiler alert
The Rhino
[close]
is one of the few things it got right. He can't really shoulder any dramatic weight and his powers don't require much explanation, so having him simply turn up and start causing chaos is a perfectly fine use of the character. I thought the design was crummy, though. And I don't know why it required Paul Giamatti to play the part.

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Replies From View on April 20, 2014, 10:39:36 AM
I wish it wasn't necessary to pack loads of villains into a single film, and for that film to be those villains' only outing.  How about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have only Doctor Octopus and have The Amazing Spider-Man 5 be The Return of Doctor Octopus?  There's surely enough comic history in Spider-Man to not only ever make three films and then reboot.

Was it Burton's Batman that galvanised the modern trend of killing off the villain? I certainly remember some of the more fantastical action films of the 80's having an "I'll get you next time, Gadget!" beat tacked on to the end, even if they never went on to have a sequel.

Urinal Cake

Quote from: Replies From View on April 20, 2014, 10:39:36 AM
I wish it wasn't necessary to pack loads of villains into a single film, and for that film to be those villains' only outing.
Sony probably wants it's money worth.

BritishHobo

Quote from: Replies From View on April 20, 2014, 10:39:36 AM
I wish it wasn't necessary to pack loads of villains into a single film, and for that film to be those villains' only outing.  How about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have only Doctor Octopus and have The Amazing Spider-Man 5 be The Return of Doctor Octopus?  There's surely enough comic history in Spider-Man to not only ever make three films and then reboot.

I think in their defence, the reboot was more because of a personnel change than anything. There was a script for a fourth film, with the cast returning, and Raimi had plans for a fifth and sixth. But he pulled out because he couldn't meet the deadline Sony were giving him, IIRC Maguire and Dunst didn't want to do it without him, and so they started over.

Garfield definitely won't be sticking with this franchise forever, but hopefully the way they're building things means they'll carry on regardless, bring in a different actor or a different character.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Or, hopefully, a different writer.

Quote from: Urinal Cake on April 17, 2014, 11:05:01 PM
Super hero films are about escapism, I mean yes the heroes have to be relatable but ultimately they have to be people we aspire to.
Spidey's escapist - an average, nerdy kid who suddenly finds himself bestowed with great power - and (in the comics, anyway) he's plenty witty, constantly quipping during fights.

More to the point, The Raimi films were huge commercial (and, in the case of the first two) critical hits, so it's not as if the character is lacking in cultural cachet, or whatever. That these new Spider-Man films are less well received (critically anyway - the first one apparently earned over 750 million dollars at the box office) than the Iron Man series is down to the films themselves. They could be just as good, except that Sony apparently don't care.

mycroft

Quote from: Replies From View on April 20, 2014, 10:39:36 AM
I wish it wasn't necessary to pack loads of villains into a single film, and for that film to be those villains' only outing.  How about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have only Doctor Octopus and have The Amazing Spider-Man 5 be The Return of Doctor Octopus?

This is why I think heroes such as Batman or Sprider-Man would be better suited to having long-running television series than movies - major villains emerging over various plot-arcs, allowing all the characters to develop and giving them the chance to return. This especially applies to Batman, who famously isn't supposed to kill people but always has a small pile of bodies at the end of a film.

It'd also be better creatively as TV has long since overtaken film in terms of the quality of its output. Suppose yer Warner and yer Sony just want the bigger payday.

SteveDave

Quote from: BritishHobo on April 21, 2014, 02:00:22 AM
I think in their defence, the reboot was more because of a personnel change than anything. There was a script for a fourth film, with the cast returning, and Raimi had plans for a fifth and sixth. But he pulled out because he couldn't meet the deadline Sony were giving him, IIRC Maguire and Dunst didn't want to do it without him, and so they started over.


I thought the reboot was done because if the studio who has Spiderman don't do anything with the character within a certain timeframe he automatically gets given back to Marvel for zip. Same with the Fantastic Four & that's why it's being rebooted with Billy Elliot & a black Human Torch.

Replies From View


Replies From View

Quote from: mycroft on April 21, 2014, 07:53:49 AM
This is why I think heroes such as Batman or Sprider-Man would be better suited to having long-running television series than movies - major villains emerging over various plot-arcs, allowing all the characters to develop and giving them the chance to return. This especially applies to Batman, who famously isn't supposed to kill people but always has a small pile of bodies at the end of a film.

It'd also be better creatively as TV has long since overtaken film in terms of the quality of its output. Suppose yer Warner and yer Sony just want the bigger payday.

This is what I think too.  Although with a television series there's a need for so many episodes I can see there being a lot of padding and guff and running out of steam quickly, whereas I'd be happy for a 90 minute film every two years if only they'd approach them differently. 

Spider-Man would be great if they could approach it like the original Godzilla films:  this time Spidey battles this guy and has this other problem to contend with.  Next time, it's this guy and this problem.  On and on until there's thirty Spider-Man films, all within the same "series" despite cast changes, some good films and others not as good. 

I couldn't give a fuck if Spider-Man was played by the same actor from one film to the next; just create something fun and ongoing that changes as the times change.

BritishHobo

Quote from: SteveDave on April 21, 2014, 11:59:54 AM
I thought the reboot was done because if the studio who has Spiderman don't do anything with the character within a certain timeframe he automatically gets given back to Marvel for zip. Same with the Fantastic Four & that's why it's being rebooted with Billy Elliot & a black Human Torch.

Well that too, but Raimi pulling out was why they went for a reboot over a sequel.

Essentially yeah, Sony pretty much have to make a Spider-Man film every five years or so otherwise they'll lose the rights.

Replies From View

I really reckon the first two Raimi Spider-Man films were lifted by having John Williams as composer.

Have him onboard for The Amazing Spider-Man series and more people would be saying how "fucking ace" the reboot is.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth


Replies From View

I fucking meant Danny Elfman and somehow typed John Williams.

I am still right though.

Replies From View

I've just read on Wikipedia to find out what Sinister Six means.  And I'm surprised they're bringing in a gimmick like this only two films into the Spider-Man reboot.  Shouldn't Doctor Octopus and all these other supervillains have - y'know - a bit of backstory with Spider-Man before launching into a massive showdown against him?  Seems like something you should bring in to rejuvenate the franchise after four or five sequels, not one.

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

I think film makers are wary about saving stories - especially popular arcs from the comics - for films that never get made. Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent in Burton's batman, Doc Connors being established in Raimi's Spiderman series. In an ideal world, seeding these characters for them to ultimately pay off further down the line would be great, but as it's hard to guarantee sequels from the same team - and Hollywood's current fondness for a reboot to reinvigorate a franchise - it's a risk that won't necessarily pay off.

Replies From View

Yeah but they plan trilogies (at least) now rather than standalone films.  And Sony are guaranteed to keep churning out Spider-Man films of any quality for the foreseeable future or they'll lose the rights to do so.  I'd have thought having some notion of a long-game would be in their best interests really.

How difficult can it be to give us four quality films to establish several villains who each have a grudge against Spider-Man, before even starting to lump them together into gangs?  Doctor Octopus hasn't even been introduced in the reboot yet.  It's just impatience, and they're making it look like the entire history of Spider-Man lacks the potential to have even three consecutive good films made out of it.

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Yeah, but it's always a risk. Actors dropping out/becoming unavailable. To set up the sinister six properly you ideally need at least three films with two villains apiece, which if any of them flop can put the franchise's current incarnation at risk. You also have the problem that, because the team-up movie is the story they want to tell, lack of passion can make the earlier films feel like extended adverts for the eventual finale.

I'm not saying that it can't be done - indeed, ideally it should be done - but I can understand the risks in playing a long game with movie arcs. Unless you're a dedicated organisation familiar with the source material, like Marvel, it's hard to pull off.

Replies From View

They arguably already appear to care more about the Sinister Six than Spider-Man, due to the obvious rush to get to the former as quickly as possible.

It doesn't matter if actors drop out, anyway.  Audiences can handle that sort of transition.  What harmed the two Schumacher Batman films wasn't the lead actor changing.  A single trilogy with the same cast and even production team is fine enough; continuity doesn't need to be entirely abandoned after that.

VegaLA

How freaky... my Son randomly chose a comic book on the cover alone just the other week, and it's a Sinister Six book. I'll have to read it.

As for all the complications of thinking ahead with trilogies they may want to have a word with Peter Jackson.

BritishHobo

Quote from: Replies From View on April 23, 2014, 02:06:21 PM
I've just read on Wikipedia to find out what Sinister Six means.  And I'm surprised they're bringing in a gimmick like this only two films into the Spider-Man reboot.  Shouldn't Doctor Octopus and all these other supervillains have - y'know - a bit of backstory with Spider-Man before launching into a massive showdown against him?  Seems like something you should bring in to rejuvenate the franchise after four or five sequels, not one.

From what I've read, the plan is to do a third Spider-Man film and then a Sinister Six film. Now if they use Harry Osborn, the Lizard, Electro and the Rhino (maybe not the Rhino) that means they've only got two or three more to bring in, and they can introduce one or two of those in the third film, and then the other(s) in the actual Sinister Six film.

I think in large part it's because of The Avengers. After the success of that franchise, everybody's scrabbling to build a massive universe. X-Men are doing their big time travel thing and uniting both versions of the character, DC are slowly, agonizingly slowly doing Batman vs Superman, and so Sony are looking for whatever they can to make things bigger and grander.

Thomas

It's an interesting idea, building up a massive canonical universe through cinematic instalments, but it also means seeing the same superhero names year after year with a numeral tacked on the end. It's all CGI and digits to me.

They should drop the numbering. James Bond didn't get to where it is today using titles like 'James Bond 14: A View to a Kill'.[nb]Of course, where James Bond is today is a new, post-2006 reboot universe, no matter what biggy says.[/nb]

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

I want them to reboot a franchise halfway through a movie. Sort of like a superhero Lost Highway.