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 Anyong Bluth

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.

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.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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.

[Aries Walker]

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

Durr.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

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.

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.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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...

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.

[JD10367]

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.

[Silock]

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.

[Aries Walker]

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.

[Anyong Bluth]

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

[Deberg_1990]

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?

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

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.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

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

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

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

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.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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.

Spider-Man is more this type of guy

[AustinChief]

Holy moses, this movie was just plain terrible.