I could give you a half hour about this, but that's a thing that's happening to superheroes now. There's a misconception that in order to make them interesting, they have to be conflicted, emotional, almost anti-heroes; it's even being reflected in their darker costumes. Superman and Spider-Man are the most obvious offenders, but I can almost guarantee that's what we'll get with the new Fantastic Four as well, and I think it's a major reason why we haven't seen Wonder Woman have her own damn movie by now.

The big exception is Captain America, fortunately. It's no coincidence that of those mentioned, he's also the one whose movie adaptation is the most identifiable and relevant to our real-life world, and is therefore - in my humble opinion - the best character.

If I didn't have a paper on Zachary Taylor to write tonight, I would seriously be able to go on and on about this.

Critics are some of the worst people to rate niche movies. Personally I think some of them get paid for their ratings. Or maybe, Marvel trying to get the rights back.

ASM2, critic 54, audience 76
SM3, critic 63, audience 51
XM3, critic 57, audience 63
SR, critic 76, audience 62

B&R, critic 12, audience 17 seems everyone agreed. No where near what is going on above though.

So when an audience gives a 3/4 rating, it seems like it might be a fun movie to watch.

I am seeing it at 8, so I can confirm or deny personally then.

Just saying never trust movie critics on comic or horror movies, nor comedies.


Super troopers
critic 35, audience 90.

I've watched it twice, the second time only to make sure I wasn't wrong about it the first time.

It sucks balls IMO, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ah, but did it suck more balls than Spider-Man 3? Because that sucked some pretty serious balls.

Yep, straight arrow and very much un-conflicted Cap, rocks... but I will never be able to put him above Bales Batman.

Batman was an anti-hero to begin with, though, as was Wolverine, Hellboy, and (since about 1980) Daredevil. I'm talking about the non-anti-hero-heroes who do their thing for mainly altruistic reasons and whose ideals are typically reflected in their bright costuming. Another example is Oliver Queen on Arrow.

True.

It's better than that. Ironically though, it resembles that movie some. The overstuffed plot, underdeveloped villains.

Like I said- its not that I'm raving about it, but it's better than the previous mentioned movies.

I'm not offended if other's opinion differs.

You're partly right, because critics aren't above making salacious statements in the intended result being quoted in tv, radio, and print spots. Quick way to build a national name and move up the ladder to be the next nationally known critic. Pretty kush job to be the next S&E, Maltan, or Roeper.

Saw it earlier today. I thought it was "meh." It wasn't shitty, but at the same time it wasn't spectacular. The first one was better.

Who was the shadowy figure...



Post-movie teaser...

It was a free promo because the 2 studios originally had the same opening dates. Xmen pushed back in exchange for Sony showing the free promo for all the Spidey screenings.

Whatever the case, it was pretty unusual. Sony promoting for FOX? That's nearly unheard of.



It would be so sweet if Sony worked our a deal with Disney where Garfield could show up in a Marvel movie.

Arrow has been anti for more than a decade, he was anti hero in the jlu cartoon.

People going in expecting an action flick are probably going to be disappointed. This movie is more about Peter Parker than it is about Spider-Man.

I liked the story it told. I would've liked to have seen more action for a 2hr 20 minute film, but I liked what was there. Its just not that balls out, in your face, Michael Bay wet dream inspiring actionfest that a lot of people were hoping for.

Ill buy it when it comes out.

After seeing it, it was good summer comic movie. I agree with the 7/10 scale.

Couple parts bugged me, but I get that every movie.

The only extra villain that bugged me was harry, but that is more setting it up for later I am guessing and they should of killed her next movie so harry could build it up more. Same with the Rhino, I was sitting there almost to the end and was asking my buddy where the **** he was at. We all complain in other movies that villains do not matter is most movies because they get killed off quickly. Well it seems they are building up to other movies.

I have a feeling the last guy talking to harry and them showing the vulture wings, octo arms and the rhino are setting up the sinister six movie they green lit.


Other things in the thread, Peter is not nerdy enough for a lot of people but yet gets yelled at because he builds his own web shooters? He was 2nd behind Gwen for studies and she was getting scholarships and landing jobs at Oscorp for her skills. Seems he was smart enough to adapt his knowledge from what he learned from his dad or stole from Oscorp.

And not all of the spiderman comics are as him super nerdy and dorky. Just like all the batmans were dark knight.

I think Garfield has made spiderman his own.

Anyone stating this is worse than spiderman 3 or some of those other shit comic movies needs to take a step back and realize they may be hating on something else other than the movie.

I thought there was a good amount of action, but looking back you don't realize there was not because the movie flowed so well and quickly.

Only droll scene was them skipping rocks. They could of cut that shit.

Honestly yes. My criticism only was much later after reflection. Those walking in already skeptical are of course going to pick it apart as they give it a 1st view. Predetermined expectations have a crazy way of becoming self fulfilling prophecy.

Heh, thought of another complaint. Harry and Peter are supposed to be 18 in this? Harry says he hasn't seen Peter in 10 years. So they were so close and best buds at 8 years old? I just didn't buy it.

Yep, but THIS is Sony's big $$$ maker for the year. A couple weeks unchallenged is a big deal for box office take. Xmen will most likely have a much longer theatre run.


Avid has recently come out and softened his stance on Spider Man crossing over with other Marvel properties. Before he was adamant it would never happen under his control. Now, he's said it might be a possibility so long as Spider Man was the primary focus of the story - essentially the primary lead.

Lol yeah, we talked about that during the movie also.

His best friend.


also

the airplane crash, 18 yo. So what his parents died in 2002 if we are lucky maybe a few years earlier?

Yet somehow they have a ethernet connection on an airplane?

Heheh, yea.....it's like this movie needed a few more rewrites. They filmed the rough draft.

This movie is better than Spider-Man 3. I also don't get the hate for the build up to Electro.

Harry says 10, Peter corrects him and says 8. I see your point though.

This movie was basically a romantic comedy with a few action scenes thrown in.

Garfield looks ridiculously old to be playing a high school student.

That's because he's 31

I'll probably wait for DVD/Netflix.

Already going to Godzilla and X-Men...

92 milly opening weekend, with a 369 global take so far.

Nope, nope, noppity nope is Sony ever giving this property up.

Sony execs are laughing all the way to Vegas for their hookers and blow party right now at the thought of giving Marvel back the Spider Man rights.

I'd expect a big second-week dropoff. They still make money, so they'll keep the rights and keep churning them out, but I wouldn't expect much more past five or so if they don't improve the quality.

Marvel's got Avengers-themed movies planned out until 2028. I wouldn't be surprised if they're figuring they'll just reboot X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four after that.

I think it would be easier if they just bought them out. Throw a couple bill to get it back for each one.

I'm a comix nerd and like going to these flicks but I'd be shocked if supes movies still have this kind of momentum with the general public in 10-15 years.

There's so much of it right now they'll get burned out (like zombies) and it'll be back to the hard core fans only...

Garfield already has said his last is the 3rd film, and there is already talk about the next Spiderman reboot won't be the Peter Parker storyline.

I actually don't think they will. Other genres have come and gone - westerns in the 50's and 60's, slasher movies or swords and sorcery in the 80's, romantic comedies in the 90's, and so on - but this is unlike them in that an entire studio has been devoted to just these films. This one studio has put out nine films, almost all huge successes, in six years, half the time it took James Bond (also a runaway hit series) to reach the same amount.

Marvel is probably even buoying the genre by now, because if the viewing public had only Man of Steel, the X-Men and Spider-Man series to go on, they'd think superhero movies really do suck now that Nolan's finished.

They're in effect a specialized studio, focusing on superhero movies in the same way Miramax focuses on indies. Marvel has thousands of characters and fifty years of stories to draw on, so they'll keep it going for a long time.

The overseas market is more important than the US market now anyways. Its one of the reasons these flicks open up around the world before the US market,.

He will be getting too old for the role anyways after that.

Hasn't slowed Hugh Jackman down much.

And he's said that his next stand alone pic will be his last. Right now word is an adaptation of the Old Man Logan story.

It almost has to be.

I didnt mean Garfield wouldnt be able to handle the role physically. I meant his look would be too old for the role. has there ever been an older looking Peter Parker/Spiderman?

He was married for like the last 15 years until recently. I want to say he's (somehow) in his 30's in the comix. I haven't really followed him in years...

He's 28 in the comics.

That WOULD be badass, but only if Marvel had access to all of its theatrical characters. IIRC, Spiderman, Iron Man and the Hulk play extremely prominent roles in that story.

Spider Man 2
 

I think all of the other heroes get killed. Except for Hawkeye.

Wolverine actually used Iron Man's armor and Cap's shield at one point.

I heard he's really much older, lies about his age because he can't accept being over 30, and has had a ton of work done.

Seriously, they've never done a story arc about PP as an old / older man?

That seems less believable than a boy given spider enhanced capabilities after being bitten by a radioactive spider.





Well you can cross Spider Man off that list. Every one else is fair game afaik (?)

None that I know of, but I obviously haven't read every storyline. Yet.

No, he really is 28. In the issue that came out literally four days ago, it says he's been Spider-Man for 13 years, and he started at 15.

It was a joke.

Ah. Every once in a while I get jokes. This was not one of those times.

Durr.

No ****ing way they go that route. If they do it will be horrible. They do not have the balls to do it correctly at rated R.

And someone else said it, the big characters are held by different movie rights.

Well that's great and all, but he's 18 in this movie and looks like a 30 year old. He just doesn't sound like one. It's a stark contrast when compared to Osborne.

Movie wasn't as bad as it's been made out to be. The Goblin stuff was a bit rushed and, as usual, to get from point to point it seemed a lot of coincidences needed to happen ("oh, look, I just took a serum to turn into the Green Goblin, and luckily right here is some sort of flying suit that I magically know how to operate"). And I bought the Foxx character more before he turned into Doctor Manhattan. But it was entertaining albeit a bit talky and a half hour too long.

Movie was good. Problem is that people now expect a dark superhero movie every time they see one. Or at the very least, serious superhero movies. But Spider-Man has always had that campy sense of humor. He's just not this dark guy. So his dialogue always seems stupid in he movies. But the movies are just being true to who Spidey is in the comics.

I haven't seen 2 yet, but in the first Amazing Spider-Man they weren't very true to his character in the comics. Spider-Man is not the guy to show off in the high school gym or taunt the police, for example.

Rumor for III is the main baddy will be Kraven the Hunter, and adapt the storyline from Kraven's Last Hunt

This column claims a lot was changed in the editing room at the last minute. Like the first film.

http://badassdigest.com/2014/05/07/n...-spider-man-2/

It's become clear that the main aesthetic driving the Amazing Spider-Man films is 'changing our mind and redoing the whole film in the editing room,' as both movies' marketing campaigns include peeks into massive subplots utterly excised from the final films. In the first it was all the stuff about Peter's parents having a secret - I spelled it out for you in this article. This year the big missing element is Oscorp tracking Peter; the ads and trailers made a big deal out of this, and even made it seem as if Harry Osborn had put two and two together and knew that Peter was Spider-Man (his reasoning in the movie is so awful - that because Peter took A picture of Spider-Man he must know Spider-Man - that we would be thankful to learn this was a last minute change). The whole dynamic of that relationship seems to be different.

But that isn't the only change made during the course of making/editing the movie. One change that I've heard whispered about is actually kind of big, and I don't know why it was altered, as it would have fixed some problems with the first movie: in the original script Donald Mencken, the Colm Feore character who is an asshole at Oscorp and who fires Harry Osborn, was Mr. Ratha. You remember him - the character played by Irrfan Khan who disappears in The Amazing Spider-Man but who, according to the trailers and released photos, was probably killed by the Lizard in a deleted scene. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 feels like a sequel to a movie that isn't The Amazing Spider-Man, and having Ratha show up and continue his asshole ways would have gone a long way to solve that. It also would have made a dent in the big wall of white guys.

One element that made it all the way to shooting, and screenshots of it have somehow made their way online. It was to be a post-credits tag, and it was to be when Mr. Fiers (give me a ****ing break) is in the Oscorp lab, setting up the Sinister Six. One of the rooms has a head in a jar - Norman Osborn's head. "Time to wake up, old friend," Fiers says, and then the final credits roll.

Is that particularly good? Not really, but it certainly beats a guy in a hat walking in front of Doc Ock's tentacles. And it makes the appearance of Chris Cooper in the movie feel like it had some, I don't know, point? I'm glad Cooper got a paycheck, but he's playing one of the single most pointless roles I have ever seen in a major film, one that exists simply because the character was a big deal in the comics.

Are these the only changes made to the film? Is The Amazing Spider-Man 2, like The Amazing Spider-Man, a victim of visionless leaders being pushed around by marketing types (both films scored dismally in early tests, I understand)? Will the next film have that same feeling of figuring it out as they go along, and not telling the marketing people what they cut?

Ya know I'd like to see them make available all the cuts from both films. You gotta figure there's probably an hour or more of it, and basically whole other 2 movies.

I would like that. If I remember correctly, Spider-Man dies in that arc..?

Sedated - thought to be dead and buried alive for ~2 weeks.

Spider-Man is more this type of guy
http://i.imgur.com/kVvxUr8.jpg

Holy moses, this movie was just plain terrible.

Oh, and another thing they cut out was MJ. Shaliene Woodley played her and filmed a few scenes.
Posted via Mobile Device

He's not parker from the comics. Parker is a studious nerd. Not quite as socially awkward as he was in Raimi's spider-man, but not 'outgoing' either.

In the Amazing Spider-man, Peter has been dumbed down to a 'slacker genius' archetype... which undermines the amount of work it takes to be a genius. I mean he's almost the complete opposite of the comic/Raimi version of Parker.

Outside of the action bits, which were nice eye candy, I hated this movie. Basically Michael Bay type crap without the actual action directing ability of Michael Bay.

Blecch.

Yea, hes far from genius. Gwen had to explain to him how batteries worked.

Saw Spiderman 2 yesterday in Imax 3D

special effects were amazing


The lightening in 3D was crazy good, best i've ever seen


fight scenes were good, overall movie was just ok

clearly setting the ground work for more movies/t.v shows and continuing to expand the marvel universe. The brain trust working to place Marvel throughout the entertainment world is pretty impressive.

And thank sweet ****ing Christ for that. Shailene Woodley as MJ is a criminally stupid casting.

Im really hoping that Felicity Jones doesn't end up being Felicia Hardy. Hopefully, she's just some throwaway chick that happens to be named Felica.



Shailene Woodley looks nothing like this.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images...-parkerHEH.jpg


Felicity Jones doesn't have the rack to play Black Cat.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...rt_d31er76.jpg

Both Spiderman movies in the reboot have been terrible, IMO.

Just saw this...plot was average at best. Garfield and Stone were solid and had chemistry that made the film better than it was. The effects were pretty sweet.

In the Comix there are no flat chested women...

Kitty was.

The more I think back on this movie, the worse it gets. The script was awful. The first Garfield Spider-Man movie was better.

So was Jubilee.

They were both intended as throw-a-way's (if what I've read is true) but at the time they were too popular to $#itcan...

Her character was saved by Uncanny X-Men #251.

To me (and others) this was the apex of the Uncanny books and it went downhill slowly from there.

That cover with Wolverine crucified and the story that follows with him being saved by one of the lamest mutants ever...loved it.

http://www.comicnoize.com/wp-content...0/04/L2471.jpg

They were both introduced as girls, not women. Generally speaking, comic book proportions include big boobs on the ladies.

So Sinister Six and Spider Man 3 get new release dates. Basically pushed back a year. Ill be surprised if Spider man 3 ever gets made...at least in this incarnation.

So....reboot again???

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...inister-720605


Nov. 11, 2016 for Sinister Six
May 4, 2018 for Spider man 3

I still think Claremont's run on uncanny X-men was the best thing ever done in the mainstream marvel universe.

It could have lasted, but Jim Lee got him fired and the book has pretty much totally sucked since.

Holy shit, they're going to try to do an Aunt May movie... LMAO

http://www.latino-review.com/news/ex...aunt-may-movie

Dear God. Just SELL the damn thing back to Marvel. Work out a slice of profits. Anything. Sony just does NOT know WTF it is doing with that franchise.

Congratulations Direckshun!