Spider Man 2

[whoman69]

Jamie Foxx reportedly up for the villain in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2′

Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man will face off against a "shocking" new adversary in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2." According to Variety, Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx is in early talks to play the villain Electro in Sony's superhero sequel to this summer's reboot of the Marvel Comics' franchise.

While the studio hasn't officially commented on casting, Foxx all but confirmed the role Thursday with a post-Halloween tweet:
Dressed up as Electro for Halloween last night. Costume fits well.
— Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx) November 1, 2012

The classic Spidey villain Electro, aka Maxwell "Max" Dillon, gained the ability to control electricity after being struck by lightning. Created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, he first appeared in "The Amazing Spider-Man #9" in February 1964. Foxx would be a departure from the comic-book character, who has traditionally been depicted as being Caucasian.

There was a hint that Electro would be the villain of the next movie at the end of "The Amazing Spider-Man." In a short scene during the credits, Dr. Curt Conners, aka the Lizard (played by Rhys Ifans), was visited in his jail cell by a mysterious figure obscured in the shadows. The man (played by actor Micheal Masse) asked Connors if he told Peter Parker the truth about his father, and when Connors says no, he disappears with a flash of lightning. This lead some people to assume that figure was supposed to be Electro, but others believe it to be Norman Osborn, who was mentioned throughout the film (and later becomes the villain, Green Goblin).

This would be the first time Electro would appear in a movie, but back in 1991, director James Cameron developed his own "Spider-Man" project that would have featured the character as one of the villains. Cameron's version got caught up in a web of legal issues surrounding the rights, and he eventually left the project, going on to direct "True Lies" and "Titanic." "Spider-Man" wouldn't hit the big screen until the next decade.

Stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are set to reprise their roles as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, respectively, with Shailene Woodley ("The Descendants") reportedly in talks to join the cast as a young Mary Jane Watson. "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is scheduled to swing into theaters on May 2, 2014. Jamie Foxx will next be seen playing the title role in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," opening this Christmas.

UPDATE: In an interview with Collider.com, director Marc Webb confirmed that the villain of the sequel will be Electro. He said, "I think Electro is an incredibly visual, exciting, dangerous villain. So, there's a lot of appealing stuff that's going to happen."

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...221012641.html

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by scott free

I read a funny article on Cracked.com (god bless that site, LOVE 'em) that basically said you know a superhero franchise has jumped the shark when they try to pack too many villains into one movie.

It means they didn't have a strong enough story for one villain, so they just try to dazzle everyone with multiple bullshiters... I hated the last one anyway, Spiderman was never supposed to be "dark and gritty".

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.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Other movies that rated higher on Rotten Tomatoes: Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Superman Returns.

One critic called Amazing Spider-Man 2 "the Batman and Robin of the Spidey series."

Ouch.

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.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

I'd disagree with any of those being better movies. Seriously, even with it's flaws, this is a better movie by far. I'm sure that there are some that don't or won't care for it, but it's still not the disaster those other 4 mentioned above are.

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.

[Aries Walker]

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

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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.

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

[Aries Walker]

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.

[Easy 6]

True.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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

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

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by scott free

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.

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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

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.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Valiant

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.

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.

[Munson]

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...

Spoiler!

towards the end of the movie talking to Harry?

Post-movie teaser...

Spoiler!

Anybody else feel like the X-Men scene was out of place? I realize Marvel wants to promote "Days of Future Past." But the Marvel fans are gonna see it regardless. Plus, they already promoted it in the previews.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Munson

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...

Spoiler!

towards the end of the movie talking to Harry?

Post-movie teaser...

Spoiler!

Anybody else feel like the X-Men scene was out of place? I realize Marvel wants to promote "Days of Future Past." But the Marvel fans are gonna see it regardless. Plus, they already promoted it in the previews.

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.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

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.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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.

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

[Wallcrawler]

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.