Batman-Online.com

Here's the trailer.

Strangely, it reminds me too much of Transformers for my liking. It seems that it'll have similar level of destruction as Man of Steel, though it'll be interesting to see if people will like TASM2 more.

I should know by now never to write a movie off just by watching the first trailer, after all I did that for Man of Steel and even the first Amazing Spider-Man and it turned out I liked both films better than I had expected. But this comes across as a bit corny for my taste. I'm not liking the look of the Rhino, and I'm not impressed with the new Harry Osborn or Jamie Foxx as Electro from what I've seen.

Looks alright I guess, but from watching the trailer, ASM 2 just looks like one big set up for the Sinister Six to appear in ASM 3. As there are quite a few (more than to my liking anyways) adversaries already in the film, along with even possibly setting up future adversaries as well. Webb's ASM wasn't exactly a film I have alot of reverence for, but I found it competent enough overall. I hope to like this more, but eh ... we'll see. Can't say this trailer made me anticipate this anymore ...

On an architectural note:  it was interesting to see 20 Exchange Place's rotunda (0:49) and the base of the Hearst Tower as the Oscorp building (1:12).

The tower Spidey was touching (2:12) looks like it was metal, but it explodes instead of just frying him. Weird.

TASM got the job done. This seems bigger in scale for one.

You have to give all the Spidey movies props for embracing the pure fantastical look of the comics without hesitation. The Lizard, Sandman, Doc Ock and Venom are all as they are.

Rhino as a mech suit is a good move, IMO. They all can't be cross genetics. I mean, they can be, but when there's a chance at variety, go for it. And he looks like a Rhino. They didn't cop out. Electro is literally a man of pure energy.

Fingers crossed it turns out well.

Is anyone else bothered that all the villains are going to be Oscorp creations?  You even see the prototype suits for the Vulture and Dr Octopus in the trailer.  It bothers me because it could rob some of these villains of their own interesting stories and motivations and simply turn them into Norman/Harry Osborne's pawns...*yawn*

I think Sony are so desperate to hold onto Spider-Man as a property and create a franchise as bog as The Avengers they seem to be on a headlong rush to get to the 'Sinister Six' story.  It's like the cinematic equivalent of premature ejaculation.  Why can't they build things up slowly and more satisfyingly over time instead of spending all their chips all at once?

Anyway, I did like the first 'ASM' movie but I do fear for the direction this franchise seems to be going.  Same with the current 'Superman' franchise and Warner's relentless rush to make a 'JLA' movie ASAP.  Oh well, at least we'll always have the 'Avengers' franchise which has shown everyone how this type of team-dynamic franchise should be done (i.e. over a space of several films/years).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  7 Dec  2013, 14:51
Is anyone else bothered that all the villains are going to be Oscorp creations?  You even see the prototype suits for the Vulture and Dr Octopus in the trailer.  It bothers me because it could rob some of these villains of their own interesting stories and motivations and simply turn them into Norman/Harry Osborne's pawns...*yawn*

Yup. If anything, I find that sort of plotting ultimately downgrading the villains in Spidey's rogues gallery in by having so many of them in this cinematic franchise associated with Oscorp, and thus, overshadowed to some extent by the Osborn legacy. Not every major baddie who pops up in this particular version needs the Osborn anchor, and some, like Doc Ock for example, honestly does not need that sort association at all. As Ock is one villain that I have always considered to be right up there in importance with the Green Goblin. He's by far the most consistent foe in the 50 years of continuity, and can stand up on his own just fine.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  7 Dec  2013, 17:45

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  7 Dec  2013, 14:51
Is anyone else bothered that all the villains are going to be Oscorp creations?  You even see the prototype suits for the Vulture and Dr Octopus in the trailer.  It bothers me because it could rob some of these villains of their own interesting stories and motivations and simply turn them into Norman/Harry Osborne's pawns...*yawn*

Yup. If anything, I find that sort of plotting ultimately downgrading the villains in Spidey's rogues gallery in by having so many of them in this cinematic franchise associated with Oscorp, and thus, overshadowed to some extent by the Osborn legacy. Not every major baddie who pops up in this particular version needs the Osborn anchor, and some, like Doc Ock for example, honestly does not need that sort association at all. As Ock is one villain that I have always considered to be right up there in importance with the Green Goblin. He's by far the most consistent foe in the 50 years of continuity, and can stand up on his own just fine.

I entirely agree Joker.  All I can say in the new franchise's defence is that it appears to be cleaving pretty close to the Ultimate version where Doctor Octopus is an employee of Norman Osborne and everything seems to link to Osborne Industries.  But like you, I think Doctor Octopus is too formidable a villain to be reduced to a mere Osborne flunkey.

The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if they contrived to make Venom an Osborne Incorporated villain.

One thing that I am puzzled about: it seems that Harry Osborn will become the green goblin near the end of this one as a lead in for the next film. Are we led to believe Norman never becomes a goblin or at least not prior to Harry?

Connecting the villains to Oscorp saves screen time as it allows them to tie plot lines together. A lot of people felt Sandman should have been an oscorp creation in spider-man 3 to free up some screen time (as many were underwhelmed with all the ongoing plotlines especially venom)

I guess I'll be the first one to make the post release review.


This one was the first spidey film which truly felt like a comic adaptation. Not to say the older series wasn't good, it definitely had its moments as did the first one in this series but this film finally puts it all together; the fights truly felt like spider-man fights with the slow motion spider-senses and spidey wise cracking.

Stone and Garfield both work well together. I hate to sound like a Nolanite but this one exposes the previous series flaws; it managed to be funny without being goofy and the female lead is actually useful instead of acting like another villain.

The only part I didn't find impressive was the Harry Osborn character. James Franco's character still tops him.

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  7 May  2014, 02:33
I guess I'll be the first one to make the post release review.


This one was the first spidey film which truly felt like a comic adaptation. Not to say the older series wasn't good, it definitely had its moments as did the first one in this series but this film finally puts it all together; the fights truly felt like spider-man fights with the slow motion spider-senses and spidey wise cracking.

Stone and Garfield both work well together. I hate to sound like a Nolanite but this one exposes the previous series flaws; it managed to be funny without being goofy and the female lead is actually useful instead of acting like another villain.

The only part I didn't find impressive was the Harry Osborn character. James Franco's character still tops him.

I was pleasantly surprised as I honestly wasn't expecting much (the trailer suggested this would be another bloated, multi-villain mess on par with 'SM3') but the various characters were fairly seamlessly integrated and given sufficient screen-time.  Art direction, cinematography, soundtrack and of course, acting and characterisation were also all top-notch.  My only real criticism is that although the film, like its predecessor, is decently-paced and works very well on its own terms, I still have some concerns that this franchise is all-too-desperate to rush through major plot developments and characters rather than build them up steadily over the series (which would arguably result in even more powerful payoffs in the long-term).  On the same point, I enjoyed Dane DeHann's performance as Harry but I do wish that his and Peter's friendship had been given more time to develop, similarly to Franco and Maguire's characters in the Raimi franchise.  The way Harry and Peter's historical friendship was introduced here seemed contrived bearing in mind we didn't hear anything about it in the earlier film, and it's a shame Harry has already become Peter's nemesis.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed,  7 May  2014, 11:56

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  7 May  2014, 02:33
I guess I'll be the first one to make the post release review.


This one was the first spidey film which truly felt like a comic adaptation. Not to say the older series wasn't good, it definitely had its moments as did the first one in this series but this film finally puts it all together; the fights truly felt like spider-man fights with the slow motion spider-senses and spidey wise cracking.

Stone and Garfield both work well together. I hate to sound like a Nolanite but this one exposes the previous series flaws; it managed to be funny without being goofy and the female lead is actually useful instead of acting like another villain.

The only part I didn't find impressive was the Harry Osborn character. James Franco's character still tops him.

I was pleasantly surprised as I honestly wasn't expecting much (the trailer suggested this would be another bloated, multi-villain mess on par with 'SM3') but the various characters were fairly seamlessly integrated and given sufficient screen-time.  Art direction, cinematography, soundtrack and of course, acting and characterisation were also all top-notch.  My only real criticism is that although the film, like its predecessor, is decently-paced and works very well on its own terms, I still have some concerns that this franchise is all-too-desperate to rush through major plot developments and characters rather than build them up steadily over the series (which would arguably result in even more powerful payoffs in the long-term).  On the same point, I enjoyed Dane DeHann's performance as Harry but I do wish that his and Peter's friendship had been given more time to develop, similarly to Franco and Maguire's characters in the Raimi franchise.  The way Harry and Peter's historical friendship was introduced here seemed contrived bearing in mind we didn't hear anything about it in the earlier film, and it's a shame Harry has already become Peter's nemesis.

This will be a spoiler post, please highlight everything in white font if you have seen the film

You make a good point about things being rushed. Gwen Stacy was a far better love interest, it's a shame we had to endure 3 films of MJ yet only got two of Stones gwen. While it seems evident MJ will be in the next film, I'm hoping she'll just be a character and not a love interest. I do have a hard time seeing any interpretation of MJ live up to Gwen's character in these films.  The other thing that was rushed was Norman Osborn although they made a point not to show the body or even what happened to it so it's certainly possible his death was faked similar to the comics.


I was worried too that this one would have the spider-man 3 problem of overloading characters although Iwas expecting a bigger role for Rhino. I'm glad they dealt with each character properly other than Harry. I guess in this case they chose a different path than the first series. Since Parker is already spider-man we don't get to see Harry stand up for him sans powers.

2 more films are confirmed + Venom and sinister six (which I have no clue how it will be handled). Webb will only do one more, Garfield may only do one more as well, I'm interested to see which paths they pursue next. Presumably we'll have college parker. We may get the symbiote storyline in the next one. Interesting bit of trivia; there is a shot in one of the trailers in which a case is shown with what appears to be the Venom Symbiote but for the final film, the case shows Vultures wing instead.

I have now finally seen the movie. Liked it quite a bit. It's nowhere near as bad as reviews suggest.

Amazing Spider-Man 2

Does it improve upon what's already established by the 2012 ASM film, yes. Unfortunately, it's not a sequel that is devoid of some very noticeable problems. However, I felt the dramatic beats pertaining to Gwen worked fairly effectively, and the humor was much more apparent than what we got out of ASM. The special effects are beautifully realised and all the action sequences are visually stunning, even though there's an overload on slow motion shots. Overall, it's enjoyable with all the visuals, but too problematic to be the apex of the now five Spider-Man films. 

I'd give it about 8/10.

The tone was different from TASM, and for the better. More daytime scenes, more humor. Garfield and Stone were solid. And you know what? Hans Zimmer genuinely surprised me with the score. I went into the film music wise cold turkey, and thought it all went together really well with the visuals.

The low Rotten Tomato score is absurd, quite frankly. This one felt like a comic book come to life. Not perfect, but a decent film overall.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  8 May  2014, 12:43
I'd give it about 8/10.

The tone was different from TASM, and for the better. More daytime scenes, more humor. Garfield and Stone were solid. And you know what? Hans Zimmer genuinely surprised me with the score. I went into the film music wise cold turkey, and thought it all went together really well with the visuals.

The low Rotten Tomato score is absurd, quite frankly. This one felt like a comic book come to life. Not perfect, but a decent film overall.

I can't argue with any of this Dark Knight.  8/10 is my rating too.  I thought the overall soundtrack, including the Alicia Keyes song that ended the film, was great, so props to Zimmer on this one.  I also thought the music that accompanied Electro's debut in Time Square worked really well in capturing his tortured state of mind.

I still have concerns about how this franchise will establish Spider-Man's nemeses.  I do hope each major villains is given an interesting identity rather than simply introduced as a Harry Osborne lackey, although I thought Rhino, despite his brief screen-time, was well handled because he's always been a bit of a second-string villain with a less complex back-story than say Venom or Doctor Octopus.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 13:03

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  8 May  2014, 12:43
I'd give it about 8/10.

The tone was different from TASM, and for the better. More daytime scenes, more humor. Garfield and Stone were solid. And you know what? Hans Zimmer genuinely surprised me with the score. I went into the film music wise cold turkey, and thought it all went together really well with the visuals.

The low Rotten Tomato score is absurd, quite frankly. This one felt like a comic book come to life. Not perfect, but a decent film overall.

I can't argue with any of this Dark Knight.  8/10 is my rating too.  I thought the overall soundtrack, including the Alicia Keyes song that ended the film, was great, so props to Zimmer on this one.  I also thought the music that accompanied Electro's debut in Time Square worked really well in capturing his tortured state of mind.

I still have concerns about how this franchise will establish Spider-Man's nemeses.  I do hope each major villains is given an interesting identity rather than simply introduced as a Harry Osborne lackey, although I thought Rhino, despite his brief screen-time, was well handled because he's always been a bit of a second-string villain with a less complex back-story than say Venom or Doctor Octopus.

Rotten Tomatoes are based on critics who'd clearly rather watch a pretentious boreathon such as the Dark Knight Rises and hate anything fun and entertaining.  I don't like it's rating system either; it's basically a pass/fail scale in which either review must be rated as either good or bad to no degrees. As flawed as it can be the IMDB is generally more accurate.


so far spider-man and all the villains have had an Oscorp connection. And there's been parts of over villains shown in Oscorp; scorpion, Vulture, and doc ock.


It is impressive how they've handled so many characters and given them proper screen time. One way to get them in was tie them into each other. Connecting them to oscorp eliminated the extra need to tell a backstory and allowed them to interact with each other.

This is a petty complaint because it relates to what 'TASM' didn't do rather than what it did do, but ideally I'd have liked to have seen Kraven the Hunter introduced in the first film as an ostensible hero that has been hired to hunt and kill the Lizard.  That way the film could have ended with a three-way battle between Spider-Man, Kraven and the Lizard, the latter of whom Spider-Man is both trying to stop and prevent from being killed (since Dr Curt Connors is a friend/mentor).  That way you could also end the film with Kraven as a full-blown villain intent on one day getting his revenge on Spider-Man...then have him return as one of Harry's Sinister Six underlings for 'TASM3' or whatever as someone with an existing grudge against Spider-Man rather than a goon for hire.

It's a minor complaint like I say, but I do think the filmmakers missed a trick in view of the way the franchise seems to be stacking up.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 15:18
This is a petty complaint because it relates to what 'TASM' didn't do rather than what it did do, but ideally I'd have liked to have seen Kraven the Hunter introduced in the first film as an ostensible hero that has been hired to hunt and kill the Lizard.  That way the film could have ended with a three-way battle between Spider-Man, Kraven and the Lizard, the latter of whom Spider-Man is both trying to stop and prevent from being killed (since Dr Curt Connors is a friend/mentor).  That way you could also end the film with Kraven as a full-blown villain intent on one day getting his revenge on Spider-Man...then have him return as one of Harry's Sinister Six underlings for 'TASM3' or whatever as someone with an existing grudge against Spider-Man rather than a goon for hire.

It's a minor complaint like I say, but I do think the filmmakers missed a trick in view of the way the franchise seems to be stacking up.

The problem with your idea is that it would add ANOTHER character to develop and as it is the big debate is whether some story arcs were rushed. I don't really see Kraven fitting into that film given the science aspects of it. Your idea isn't bad, they could so something similar with doc ock and so far I haven't seen a 3 way battle pulled off in the comics.

If Oscorp eventually crumbles in the series, that could open the door for Kraven. He's a very gritty villain, it's difficult to envision him fitting in given all the science elements although with MJ replacing Gwen, they may tone down on the science aspect and increase the human element.

Quote from: riddler on Thu,  8 May  2014, 20:53

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 15:18
This is a petty complaint because it relates to what 'TASM' didn't do rather than what it did do, but ideally I'd have liked to have seen Kraven the Hunter introduced in the first film as an ostensible hero that has been hired to hunt and kill the Lizard.  That way the film could have ended with a three-way battle between Spider-Man, Kraven and the Lizard, the latter of whom Spider-Man is both trying to stop and prevent from being killed (since Dr Curt Connors is a friend/mentor).  That way you could also end the film with Kraven as a full-blown villain intent on one day getting his revenge on Spider-Man...then have him return as one of Harry's Sinister Six underlings for 'TASM3' or whatever as someone with an existing grudge against Spider-Man rather than a goon for hire.

It's a minor complaint like I say, but I do think the filmmakers missed a trick in view of the way the franchise seems to be stacking up.

The problem with your idea is that it would add ANOTHER character to develop and as it is the big debate is whether some story arcs were rushed. I don't really see Kraven fitting into that film given the science aspects of it. Your idea isn't bad, they could so something similar with doc ock and so far I haven't seen a 3 way battle pulled off in the comics.

If Oscorp eventually crumbles in the series, that could open the door for Kraven. He's a very gritty villain, it's difficult to envision him fitting in given all the science elements although with MJ replacing Gwen, they may tone down on the science aspect and increase the human element.

But some villains don't have to be extensively established; Rhino in 'TASM2' is a case in point.  As long as they organically fit into the films' narratives extensive backstories are unnecessary.  The problem with 'Spiderman 3' wasn't necessarily that there two to three villains, not including the Symbiote and its grip on Peter itself, it was that one of them (Venom) really required an entire film or even a number of films to develop his relatively complex arc (and the way the Symbiote just landed to Earth right next to Peter was stupid and random - at least in the comic-books the Symbiote is unintentionally brought to Earth by John Jameson AKA Man-Wolf, an acquaintance of Parker).

I do see your point about the science aspect of the ASM films so far though, particularly the first film, although I still could imagine a scenario in which The Lizard was trying to turn the city into 'lizard-people' whilst Kraven was trying to hunt him off, for the good of the city, by killing him; something Spider-Man would object to.  I just like the idea of Spidey seeming to align himself with the bad guys and the real villain being the character embraced by the public.  Kind of like the Penguin and Max Shreck in 'Batman Returns' especially after the former framed Batman and made him look like the 'bad guy'.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 23:42

Quote from: riddler on Thu,  8 May  2014, 20:53

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 15:18
This is a petty complaint because it relates to what 'TASM' didn't do rather than what it did do, but ideally I'd have liked to have seen Kraven the Hunter introduced in the first film as an ostensible hero that has been hired to hunt and kill the Lizard.  That way the film could have ended with a three-way battle between Spider-Man, Kraven and the Lizard, the latter of whom Spider-Man is both trying to stop and prevent from being killed (since Dr Curt Connors is a friend/mentor).  That way you could also end the film with Kraven as a full-blown villain intent on one day getting his revenge on Spider-Man...then have him return as one of Harry's Sinister Six underlings for 'TASM3' or whatever as someone with an existing grudge against Spider-Man rather than a goon for hire.

It's a minor complaint like I say, but I do think the filmmakers missed a trick in view of the way the franchise seems to be stacking up.

The problem with your idea is that it would add ANOTHER character to develop and as it is the big debate is whether some story arcs were rushed. I don't really see Kraven fitting into that film given the science aspects of it. Your idea isn't bad, they could so something similar with doc ock and so far I haven't seen a 3 way battle pulled off in the comics.

If Oscorp eventually crumbles in the series, that could open the door for Kraven. He's a very gritty villain, it's difficult to envision him fitting in given all the science elements although with MJ replacing Gwen, they may tone down on the science aspect and increase the human element.

But some villains don't have to be extensively established; Rhino in 'TASM2' is a case in point.  As long as they organically fit into the films' narratives extensive backstories are unnecessary.  The problem with 'Spiderman 3' wasn't necessarily that there two to three villains, not including the Symbiote and its grip on Peter itself, it was that one of them (Venom) really required an entire film or even a number of films to develop his relatively complex arc (and the way the Symbiote just landed to Earth right next to Peter was stupid and random - at least in the comic-books the Symbiote is unintentionally brought to Earth by John Jameson AKA Man-Wolf, an acquaintance of Parker).

I do see your point about the science aspect of the ASM films so far though, particularly the first film, although I still could imagine a scenario in which The Lizard was trying to turn the city into 'lizard-people' whilst Kraven was trying to hunt him off, for the good of the city, by killing him; something Spider-Man would object to.  I just like the idea of Spidey seeming to align himself with the bad guys and the real villain being the character embraced by the public.  Kind of like the Penguin and Max Shreck in 'Batman Returns' especially after the former framed Batman and made him look like the 'bad guy'.

Maybe you'll get what you want in the next 2 films; Webb said J Jonah Jamieson will be a part of the next film. That opens up a lot of interesting possibilities; first off it will give us a setting other than Oscorp. Secondly that's where a character like Kraven could be used in the manner you alluded to; JJJ hiring Kraven to take out a villain so spider-man doesn't get the credit. Or even hiring kraven to take out spider-man himself although that may be excessive.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 23:42
at least in the comic-books the Symbiote is unintentionally brought to Earth by John Jameson AKA Man-Wolf, an acquaintance of Parker).

I though the symbiote was found offworld by Parker during the Secret Wars, or is that been changed?

Quote from: GBglide on Fri,  9 May  2014, 04:56

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 May  2014, 23:42
at least in the comic-books the Symbiote is unintentionally brought to Earth by John Jameson AKA Man-Wolf, an acquaintance of Parker).

I though the symbiote was found offworld by Parker during the Secret Wars, or is that been changed?

No, you're completely right.  I thought I'd read something different in a Spider-Man encyclopaedia but clearly I got it wrong.  :-[

I'm personally not too sure about the 'Secret Wars' backstory.  I guess I just thought that it would make more sense if an acquaintance of Parker who had been to space brought the Symbiote back to earth with them.  In any case, the 'Secret Wars' storyline is still better than what we got in 'Spiderman 3'.

That 1990's Spider-Man the Animated Series scenario of how the venom symbiote got to earth, sure is popular with fans. As I remember being on message boards back even before Raimi's Spider-Man 2 came out, and seeing it suggested as a way to get the ball rolling. Though to it's credit, it is a very straightforward way of going about it without having to go into stuff like "Secret Wars", or say the Ultimate route with it being designed to cure cancer....

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  9 May  2014, 13:51
In any case, the 'Secret Wars' storyline is still better than what we got in 'Spiderman 3'.

Where the symbiote just arrives on earth like the Blob? Sure. Even with there already being enough of a story (and characters) without the inclusion of the symbiote/venom/eddie brock storyline, Raimi tried to make chicken salad out of chicken sh%t in that case, but hey, that's what a studio refusing to budge on their mandate gets us.

That's my entire point Joker; the 'Spider-Man 3' basis for the Symbiote arriving on Earth was atrocious.  In fact, there was no basis.

But I'm curious because I only have vague memories of the animated TV show, as good as it was; what was the scenario for the Symbiote arriving on Earth and how did Spider-Man come to be involved?

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 May  2014, 03:23
Maybe you'll get what you want in the next 2 films; Webb said J Jonah Jamieson will be a part of the next film. That opens up a lot of interesting possibilities; first off it will give us a setting other than Oscorp. Secondly that's where a character like Kraven could be used in the manner you alluded to; JJJ hiring Kraven to take out a villain so spider-man doesn't get the credit. Or even hiring kraven to take out spider-man himself although that may be excessive.

This is a good idea riddler, although it would have been better if JJJ hired the Scorpion like he does in the comic-books (although that seems unlikely if the Scorpion's suit has already been spotted at the Oscorp lab).

My perfect scenario for a 'second trilogy' would concern the 'Venom' story.  I'd however, start off with Man-Wolf, JJJ's son, in the role I earlier suggested for The Lizard with Kraven arriving to hunt Man-Wolf for the good of the people (with no one realising that Man-Wolf is really JJJ's son who is under control of the amulet he discovered on his travels to space).  Kraven, initially hired by JJJ, is so consumed by his mission to take down Man-Wolf he refuses to take a less bloodthirsty approach when it becomes apparent who Man-Wolf really is, and it's up to Spider-Man to both stop and save Man-Wolf.  I'd add Eddie Brock somewhere into the mix as a reporter working for JJJ who reports a false story about Man-Wolf's exploits that associates him with some crimes he has nothing to do with.  Spider-Man reveals Brock's lies and thus, an enraged JJJ angry that his son has been falsely linked with a crime spree thanks to Brock's less-than-rigorously-researched journalism goes ballistic on Brock and ensures that he'll never get another job in the media ever again.

the most rational way to introduce the symbiote is the Ultimate spider-man storyline; Richard Parker and Eddie Brock sr. developed it as a method for curing cancer. Seeing as how this series is actually using the elder Parker's character and icorporating so much science, that is likely the best route

The secret wars would be a nightmare to even attempt to replicate on film and the space rocket would take too much screentime.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 May  2014, 17:29
the most rational way to introduce the symbiote is the Ultimate spider-man storyline; Richard Parker and Eddie Brock sr. developed it as a method for curing cancer. Seeing as how this series is actually using the elder Parker's character and icorporating so much science, that is likely the best route

The secret wars would be a nightmare to even attempt to replicate on film and the space rocket would take too much screentime.

Does everything have to relate back to Richard Parker though?  Also, there was some real pathos in the original story in which Eddie Brock was a fellow Daily Bugle reporter who got caught out by Peter Parker.  It was this element, the sense of envy and bitterness he felt towards Spider-Man that made his story so compelling.  I don't know if I'd be interested if he simply turned out to be another son of a scientist whose connection to Parker goes back to childhood.  Haven't we already been there with Harry?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  9 May  2014, 17:41

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 May  2014, 17:29
the most rational way to introduce the symbiote is the Ultimate spider-man storyline; Richard Parker and Eddie Brock sr. developed it as a method for curing cancer. Seeing as how this series is actually using the elder Parker's character and icorporating so much science, that is likely the best route

The secret wars would be a nightmare to even attempt to replicate on film and the space rocket would take too much screentime.

Does everything have to relate back to Richard Parker though?  Also, there was some real pathos in the original story in which Eddie Brock was a fellow Daily Bugle reporter who got caught out by Peter Parker.  It was this element, the sense of envy and bitterness he felt towards Spider-Man that made his story so compelling.  I don't know if I'd be interested if he simply turned out to be another son of a scientist whose connection to Parker goes back to childhood.  Haven't we already been there with Harry?

I'm one of the few people who liked the Eddie brock treatment in spider-man 3. I liked how he was the anti-Parker and their rivalry. That being said I'm not sure if that plot line would fit this series and let's face it; they're trying to be different. Also since Venom is destined to be a protagonist, they wont go too far to make him evil without the symbiote.

I'm not sure what the overall point of having Peter's parents as a part of the current story are. It doesn't feel like it is truly adding that much. That being said it would be easy to pick up the Parker Sr/Brock Sr plotline. Though you're right it would be too similar to Harry; Brock getting cancer and needing the suit after spider-man had to to cure him.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 May  2014, 21:20
I'm one of the few people who liked the Eddie brock treatment in spider-man 3. I liked how he was the anti-Parker and their rivalry. That being said I'm not sure if that plot line would fit this series and let's face it; they're trying to be different. Also since Venom is destined to be a protagonist, they wont go too far to make him evil without the symbiote.

I'm not sure what the overall point of having Peter's parents as a part of the current story are. It doesn't feel like it is truly adding that much. That being said it would be easy to pick up the Parker Sr/Brock Sr plotline. Though you're right it would be too similar to Harry; Brock getting cancer and needing the suit after spider-man had to to cure him.

I don't have a problem with the way Eddie Brock was conceived in 'Spider-Man 3' which was more or less taken directly from the original (i.e. non-Ultimate) comic-books; I just thought it was rushed and poorly handled, and of course the Symbiote and how it happened to be on Earth in the first place was just ridiculously random and poorly thought-out.

I do also like the idea of Brock being an anti-hero rather than a full-blown villain, or at least a redeemable villain, but I think that his comic-book origin suits that conception because it does endow him with a genuine degree of pathos.  You feel sorry for the guy when he's on his knees at church bemoaning the way Spider-Man has caused his life to fall apart.

Also, The Amazing Spider-Man's origins aren't too different from the Raimi series so I'd like the reboot to give Venom's classic origins another shot too.  Maybe they'll handle it well this time and cast someone who looks like the six foot red-headed brute Brock is in the comics.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  9 May  2014, 16:04
That's my entire point Joker; the 'Spider-Man 3' basis for the Symbiote arriving on Earth was atrocious.  In fact, there was no basis.

But I'm curious because I only have vague memories of the animated TV show, as good as it was; what was the scenario for the Symbiote arriving on Earth and how did Spider-Man come to be involved?

The scenario was pretty much, upon re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere, John Jameson and his crew were attacked by the symbiote, which was trying to consume them, causing Jameson to crash the shuttle on the George Washington Bridge. Brock then frames Spidey for what looks like theft from the shuttle, completely leaving out Rhino showing up, which naturally, leads to a bounty on Spider-Man. At first, Peter believes his classic spidey suit must have picked up some pollution during the incident, but upon giving him a nightmare in his sleep, he wakes up completely engulfed in the suit, and notices the enhanced abilities it's giving him. Raimi's Spider-Man 3 stayed very close to that particular part. Eventually, he has another battle with the Rhino, and tries to kill him, which leaves Peter wondering if the symbiote is influencing his actions.

And I'm with you Johnny, give me something more akin to the 616 Eddie Brock/Venom origin, as opposed to the ultimate route. That may just be me nearly always preferring the classic 616 stuff over the ultimate stuff, but I really don't have any desire to see Eddie Brock Jr. once again, and all that that particular version details as it relates to more back story with Richard Parker and how his legacy/actions continue to affect Peter's life. Honestly, I'm getting to a point where the less known about Peter's parents, the better it was. Much like Wolverine and his mysterious/questionable past (that's another story). As I generally prefer the idea of Peter being brilliant, yes, but essentially evoked as a 'everyman' who readers could relate to, that just so happened to have this gift/curse bestowed upon him by the fate of a unique spider bite. As opposed to continually retconning the past to further tie characters/events/motivations to his past. 

One thing to keep in mind is that after the next spider-man film comes the Venom film with Carnage as the villain. So they'll have to keep Venom grounded to an extend and give him boundaries.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  9 May  2014, 21:44
I don't have a problem with the way Eddie Brock was conceived in 'Spider-Man 3' which was more or less taken directly from the original (i.e. non-Ultimate) comic-books; I just thought it was rushed and poorly handled, and of course the Symbiote and how it happened to be on Earth in the first place was just ridiculously random and poorly thought-out.

I didn't have a problem with it. The 'Parker luck'. Just as it's all going good for him, a problem literally falls out of the sky. Harry aside, that's how happy and nigh bulletproof Peter was at that time - it took an extra-terrestrial force from outer space to land metres from him. Ridiculously random is true of most comic book villain origins.

The symbiote looks for aggression, but I think it sensed the power of Peter and bided its time, knowing it was onto something special. An intelligent haunting, hiding in Peter's room and from MJ. Striking when Peter was at his most vulnerable. During sleep, as The Joker points out, is close to the comics.

The symbiote also took the form of a black suit, which Peter could keep in his box, which made it look and feel more non-threatening and 'normal'. That said, I would like something different in the reboot for differentiation.

Anyway, back to TASM2. I've read the negative reviews and can't help but think these are clouded my preconceived negativity. I think I can speak on this, given I felt it during TASM's production and its subsequent release. But I've moved on now, and TASM2 is a large part of that. The harsh reviews are hyperbolic and blowing what I deem niggles into movie breakers. There's more positive than negative to be found here.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 May  2014, 01:03

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  9 May  2014, 21:44
I don't have a problem with the way Eddie Brock was conceived in 'Spider-Man 3' which was more or less taken directly from the original (i.e. non-Ultimate) comic-books; I just thought it was rushed and poorly handled, and of course the Symbiote and how it happened to be on Earth in the first place was just ridiculously random and poorly thought-out.

I didn't have a problem with it. The 'Parker luck'. Just as it's all going good for him, a problem literally falls out of the sky. Harry aside, that's how happy and nigh bulletproof Peter was at that time - it took an extra-terrestrial force from outer space to land metres from him. Ridiculously random is true of most comic book villain origins.

The symbiote looks for aggression, but I think it sensed the power of Peter and bided its time, knowing it was onto something special. An intelligent haunting, hiding in Peter's room and from MJ. Striking when Peter was at his most vulnerable. During sleep, as The Joker points out, is close to the comics.

The symbiote also took the form of a black suit, which Peter could keep in his box, which made it look and feel more non-threatening and 'normal'. That said, I would like something different in the reboot for differentiation.

Anyway, back to TASM2. I've read the negative reviews and can't help but think these are clouded my preconceived negativity. I think I can speak on this, given I felt it during TASM's production and its subsequent release. But I've moved on now, and TASM2 is a large part of that. The harsh reviews are hyperbolic and blowing what I deem niggles into movie breakers. There's more positive than negative to be found here.

I think maybe the reason why the fans seems to like it better than the critics is that it's a better spidey film or comic film than it is a film. If you look at it just as a film it's definitely flawed; the narrative and plot are both thin, there's not an awful lot of character development. But if you knew the character or even enjoyed superhero films it hits all the right notes and gives you what you want to see. The Nolan films are the other way around; better films than they are bat films or comic films; all the issues which bug us (other than Bales voice) pertain to what the character SHOULD be based on other interpretations.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 May  2014, 15:45
I think maybe the reason why the fans seems to like it better than the critics is that it's a better spidey film or comic film than it is a film. If you look at it just as a film it's definitely flawed; the narrative and plot are both thin, there's not an awful lot of character development. But if you knew the character or even enjoyed superhero films it hits all the right notes and gives you what you want to see. The Nolan films are the other way around; better films than they are bat films or comic films; all the issues which bug us (other than Bales voice) pertain to what the character SHOULD be based on other interpretations.

The thing is, I really do think it was a good film, from an objective perspective more than as a Spidey-fan.  In fact, as a Spidey-fan I already outlined some of my disappointments in how the filmmakers overlooked certain available angles (ideally I'd have liked to have seen more time spent on Parker's school years with characters like Liz Allen and more from Flash Thompson, as well as an earlier introduction for JJJ, who I assume we'll see in the next films), but I can overlook all that because this film managed to put together a compelling, well-structured story featuring great performances, striking art-direction and cinematography and a kick-ass soundtrack and score (like others have said, Zimmer seemed to save his best stuff for Spidey, not Bats).

I don't know why the critics have beaten-up on this film.  I was expecting it to be mediocre, not on the basis of the reviews which I've barely read (the only two I have read, one in the 'Guardian', which gave it a 4/5, and one in 'Empire Magazine' which gave it a 3/5, were both enthusiastic - the 'Empire' review read more like a 4/5 than a 3/5 to be honest), but in terms of the trailer and the way everything seemed to be set up (I was thinking "oh dear, here we go, another overstuffed 'Spider-Man 3'"); so I was pleasantly surprised how good it turned out to be.

I know the critics aren't part of a conspiracy but I almost think many of them sub-consciously thought "we've been so positive about other CBMs recently this is the time to beat-up on 'Spider-Man'".  After all, few mainstream critics are big comic-book fans and one can't help thinking that as soon as one or two gave it a poor review the rest just followed like lemmings.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 May  2014, 16:02

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 May  2014, 15:45
I think maybe the reason why the fans seems to like it better than the critics is that it's a better spidey film or comic film than it is a film. If you look at it just as a film it's definitely flawed; the narrative and plot are both thin, there's not an awful lot of character development. But if you knew the character or even enjoyed superhero films it hits all the right notes and gives you what you want to see. The Nolan films are the other way around; better films than they are bat films or comic films; all the issues which bug us (other than Bales voice) pertain to what the character SHOULD be based on other interpretations.

The thing is, I really do think it was a good film, from an objective perspective more than as a Spidey-fan.  In fact, as a Spidey-fan I already outlined some of my disappointments in how the filmmakers overlooked certain available angles (ideally I'd have liked to have seen more time spent on Parker's school years with characters like Liz Allen and more from Flash Thompson, as well as an earlier introduction for JJJ, who I assume we'll see in the next films), but I can overlook all that because this film managed to put together a compelling, well-structured story featuring great performances, striking art-direction and cinematography and a kick-ass soundtrack and score (like others have said, Zimmer seemed to save his best stuff for Spidey, not Bats).

I don't know why the critics have beaten-up on this film.  I was expecting it to be mediocre, not on the basis of the reviews which I've barely read (the only two I have read, one in the 'Guardian', which gave it a 4/5, and one in 'Empire Magazine' which gave it a 3/5, were both enthusiastic - the 'Empire' review read more like a 4/5 than a 3/5 to be honest), but in terms of the trailer and the way everything seemed to be set up (I was thinking "oh dear, here we go, another overstuffed 'Spider-Man 3'"); so I was pleasantly surprised how good it turned out to be.

I know the critics aren't part of a conspiracy but I almost think many of them sub-consciously thought "we've been so positive about other CBMs recently this is the time to beat-up on 'Spider-Man'".  After all, few mainstream critics are big comic-book fans and one can't help thinking that as soon as one or two gave it a poor review the rest just followed like lemmings.

One issue is the pace is too fast for critics. You know the way some of them work; they love boring films like the dark knight rises. You could tell Nolan and co. made a film to win awards as opposed to entertain audiences. ASM2 wasn't made to please anyone but the fans who wanted to see it. Though like you said the critics didn't hide their enthusiasm for the Avengers or cap 2. Luckily fans weren't fooled. the IMDB has it at 7.5 / 10

This is in response to the Rachel Dawes vs. Gwen Stacey discussion from the random thread


One difference though is that Batman doesn't have any well known love interests in the comics other than villains ala Lois Lane, Betty Brant, Carol Ferris, Pepper Potts etc. Vicky Vale and Chase Meridian were created in the previous series. So credit where credit is due, it is more excusable for Nolan to create character for love interests than it would have been for Marc Webb.

Definitely IMO Gwen Stacy in the Webb films sets the standard for what a love interest should be and MJ in the previous series sets the standard for what a love interest shouldn't be.

MJ:
-constantly gives Peter a hard time before and after finding out his alter ego
-is shallow and falls for the bad boys
-constantly becoming the dansel in distress; 6 times spidey had to save her in that series. And he also saved Gwen once

Gwen
-appears to actually be smarter than Peter
-actually helps the hero
-ends up saving spider-man more than he saves her (show me another superhero film where this happens)
-accepts and supports the hero

Rachel is somewhere in between. She gives Bruce a hard time, he never had to save her in the first film, did have to save her twice in the second film (failing once), She's a DA so she does do positive things to help Bruce. She did support what Bruce stood for.


********ASM2 spoilers below, don't read any further if you don't want to be spoiled*******



I expect Peter to use Gwen as an inspiration similar to how he does for Ben and Captain Stacey. I don't expect him to whine about failing. At least in Gwens case he knows he tried everything he could to protect her. Not so much with Ben.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 May  2014, 20:31
Vicky Vale and Chase Meridian were created in the previous series.

Vicki Vale was from the comics, Chase Meridian was made for the movies.

Quote from: GBglide on Sat, 10 May  2014, 23:43

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 May  2014, 20:31
Vicky Vale and Chase Meridian were created in the previous series.

Vicki Vale was from the comics, Chase Meridian was made for the movies.

Yes, Vicki Vale has been about since the 1940s and was in one of the early black and white Batman films.  She was created by Bob Kane on the basis of one of his supposed girlfriends, Norma Jean who later became a certain Marilyn Monroe.

It's true that many of Batman/Bruce Wayne's other comic-book girlfriends have been either villains/anti-heroines or 'girly-girls'.  Rachel was thankfully neither.

One criticism of the Raimi Spidey films that NOW should be falling by the way side, and one that was so tiring to read over and over, was the idea that the Raimi films were somehow 'corny' or 'cheesy' in comparison to Webb's ASM.

After having seen ASM2, that silly criticism certainly no longer applies. Especially in light of Jamie Foxx as Max Dillion/Electro, where some scenes came across, atleast to me, as incredibly influenced by the Raimi films, or just flat out in the exact same tone that Raimi implemented as opposed to a more gritty/darker take that ASM decided to go with in order to differentiate itself from the former series. It's a criticism that has irked me since the debut of ASM back in 2012, but I cannot see that goofy argument being seriously used by any Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy hater anymore. Especially now....

It's incredibly frustrating and annoying to see people  saying TASM2 'sucked' around the internet. They must have seen another movie than me. For someone to seriously say the film 'sucked', meaning 90% or higher is worthless trash, says to me they're making nothing more than an emotional reaction. A competitive reaction against the previous series. I just can't take those 'sucked' comments seriously.

What also gets me is how people are so scared and embarrassed by 'cheese'.  What's the problem? How about we have no humor at all in movies for fear of offending people with 'cheese'. Humor is a big part of Spider-Man and his charm, yet people must want dour brooding. It's all there in the comics, but put it on the big screen and people freak, and somehow twist this into a negative. It happened with Raimi's humor and now with Webb's.

'Cheese' was something often brought up by the ASM faithful as a detriment to what Raimi did with his trilogy. As I cannot even begin to tell you how often I would see fans, on both sides of the fence (ala Burton fans vs Nolan fans), bicker back and forth, with, more often than not, the ASM/Webb supporters continually remarking how ASM was so much better than anything Raimi ever did because the material was taken more seriously, and how 'cheesy', 'cornball', and 'camped up' the Raimi films are in comparison.

The problem with that, is that Spider-Man has always been a character that has implemented humor. Some incarnations more so than others, but it's not a character that lends itself to 'dark and gritty' as some would probably like. ASM did have humor, yes, but the tone of the film was very much attempting to differentiate itself from the lighter touch of Raimi, and as a result, brought about a film that was taking itself more seriously, and as some would say, influenced to some degree by the Nolan Bat-films ( which is highly probable since now, everyone wants a 'shared universe' thanks to the success of Avengers ).

After having seen ASM2, and I'll be honest, I haven't been checking out where the comparison argument is now with the Webb vs Raimi camps, but the ridiculous argument that the Raimi films were just typical hollywood cheese fluff is especially now completely moot. I believe someone understood that a Spidey film should be a bit less serious, and as a consequence, we received a film that, atleast as the portrayal of Spidey goes, felt much truer to the character than it's predecessor's (ASM) interpretation.

Overall, I don't believe ASM2 'sucked', nor was I exactly 'underwhelmed' by it either, but at the same time I definitely did not think it was particularly amazing either. I pretty much lump it with Spider-Man 3, which I find enjoyable for what it is, but essentially very easy to see just how it, along with ASM2, could have been better if the decision to not factor so much into a single film hadn't come to pass....

I guess my biggest complaint about the Raimi films besides Maguire is that they didn't get the humour right; spider-man himself was rarely funny. There were also too many scenes which were unintentionally funny (audience laughing at the film not with the film).

It is important to note that there are two sets of hate camps for this film; the Raimi fans and the Nolan fans; the latter of which hate on every comic film which Nolan is not attached to but especially one like this which does everything different from a Nolan film.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 12 May  2014, 15:43
I guess my biggest complaint about the Raimi films besides Maguire is that they didn't get the humour right; spider-man himself was rarely funny. There were also too many scenes which were unintentionally funny (audience laughing at the film not with the film).

This.


I haven't seen TASM 2 yet but if they got the humor right I know I'm going to like it more than the Raimi films.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 May  2014, 11:34

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 12 May  2014, 15:43
I guess my biggest complaint about the Raimi films besides Maguire is that they didn't get the humour right; spider-man himself was rarely funny. There were also too many scenes which were unintentionally funny (audience laughing at the film not with the film).

This.


I haven't seen TASM 2 yet but if they got the humor right I know I'm going to like it more than the Raimi films.

I wouldn't say any of the comedy in TASM2 was side-splitting, but then again I don't think any of the jokes in the comic-books was incredibly hilarious either.  However, this Spider-Man does have a light-hearted side and makes various wisecracks at the villains' expense, something that was missing from Tobey Maguire's comparatively dour Spider-Man.  Tonally it makes a big difference.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 13 May  2014, 12:08

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 May  2014, 11:34

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 12 May  2014, 15:43
I guess my biggest complaint about the Raimi films besides Maguire is that they didn't get the humour right; spider-man himself was rarely funny. There were also too many scenes which were unintentionally funny (audience laughing at the film not with the film).

This.


I haven't seen TASM 2 yet but if they got the humor right I know I'm going to like it more than the Raimi films.

I wouldn't say any of the comedy in TASM2 was side-splitting, but then again I don't think any of the jokes in the comic-books was incredibly hilarious either.  However, this Spider-Man does have a light-hearted side and makes various wisecracks at the villains' expense, something that was missing from Tobey Maguire's comparatively dour Spider-Man.  Tonally it makes a big difference.

The spidey comics are not laugh out loud funny but he is a real smart @$$ constantly taunting the bad guys in costume. They're light hearted. Maguire wasn't funy, the best joke he made was "here's your change" during the bank fight. Now the daily bugle scenes, those scenes Raimi got right. There's big shoes to fill there with J Jonah Jamiexon.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 13 May  2014, 15:13

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 13 May  2014, 12:08

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 May  2014, 11:34

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 12 May  2014, 15:43
I guess my biggest complaint about the Raimi films besides Maguire is that they didn't get the humour right; spider-man himself was rarely funny. There were also too many scenes which were unintentionally funny (audience laughing at the film not with the film).

This.


I haven't seen TASM 2 yet but if they got the humor right I know I'm going to like it more than the Raimi films.

I wouldn't say any of the comedy in TASM2 was side-splitting, but then again I don't think any of the jokes in the comic-books was incredibly hilarious either.  However, this Spider-Man does have a light-hearted side and makes various wisecracks at the villains' expense, something that was missing from Tobey Maguire's comparatively dour Spider-Man.  Tonally it makes a big difference.

The spidey comics are not laugh out loud funny but he is a real smart @$$ constantly taunting the bad guys in costume. They're light hearted. Maguire wasn't funy, the best joke he made was "here's your change" during the bank fight. Now the daily bugle scenes, those scenes Raimi got right. There's big shoes to fill there with J Jonah Jamiexon.

I loved those JJJ scenes too.  I think the only way for the new franchise to get round filling J K Simmons boots is to present JJJ as a darker, less loveable character this time around (i.e. the kind of guy who might feasibly hire the Scorpion to take down Spider-Man).  Portray him as a bit of a tyrant with a deep-seated hatred of Spider-Man (possibly through his tragic backstory, from the comic-books, in which his wife was killed by a vigilante).

I think Jameson's wife was killed by a masked man only in the 90's cartoon and that's why he hated masked vigilantes like Spider-Man. In the comics he was just jealous of Spider-Man. I like the 90's cartoon reason better.


I liked JK Simmons's JJJ as comic relief, it's one of things Raimi got right. I wouldn't mind seeing Jameson again in TASM 3, done differently. I was actually disappointed they didn't include him in TASM.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 May  2014, 17:42
I think Jameson's wife was killed by a masked man only in the 90's cartoon and that's why he hated masked vigilantes like Spider-Man. In the comics he was just jealous of Spider-Man. I like the 90's cartoon reason better.

I thought it was part of the comic-books too, but maybe it originated in the 90s TV series.  In any case, I trust your knowledge of Spidey's background is superior to mine (although I do know a fair bit too).  :)

Also, like you I like the idea of JJJ's hatred being linked to his wife's death.  It gives him a complex sense of pathos that partly excuses his often judgemental nature where Spidey is concerned.

QuoteI liked JK Simmons's JJJ as comic relief, it's one of things Raimi got right. I wouldn't mind seeing Jameson again in TASM 3, done differently. I was actually disappointed they didn't include him in TASM.

JK Simmons made such an impression I guess the makers of the reboot felt it would be too soon to bring the character back as played by a new actor (and as much as I love Simmons' performance I do think the reboot should be entirely fresh and cast a new JJJ).

I agree with you about JJJ as comic-relief, but since TASM has already improved on the comic-relief aspect overall, specifically in terms of Spider-Man's gags, I think the reboot can afford to introduce a more serious, even slightly darker JJJ.  Not a proper villain of course but certainly someone who has a very complex, deeply antagonistic relationship with Spider-Man.
[/quote]

I'd like to see a more serious JJJ as long as they don't change him too much from the classic character.

They could even have him be involved in the creation of a supervillain, like he did with the Scorpion in the comics and the cartoons.

In the comics JJJ eventually marries May.

I agree with the last two posts that it may be intentional that they did not include JJJ in the new series based on how well he came off in the last series. I do often point out how in the amazing spider-man every single character who was featured in both series was upgraded in the reboot. Now I don't think the trend continued with ASM2; the only characters brought in whom were in the previous series were the Osborns and both were inferior in the new series. Not sure if it is only fan hype but there has even been rumours about JK simmons reprising his role.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 14 May  2014, 03:14
In the comics JJJ eventually marries May.

Yeah, just to clarify, JJJ Sr. did.  ;)

His son, the JJJ Jr., that's currently the topic of discussion (and who everyone is more familiar with), became the Mayor of New York. Something of which he recently quit at the end of of the Superior Spider-Man arc.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 14 May  2014, 14:32

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 14 May  2014, 03:14
In the comics JJJ eventually marries May.

Yeah, just to clarify, JJJ Sr. did.  ;)

His son, the JJJ Jr., that's currently the topic of discussion (and who everyone is more familiar with), became the Mayor of New York. Something of which he recently quit at the end of of the Superior Spider-Man arc.

You're right. Just saying that could make for an interesting movie plotline; Sally Field's character is interesting enough that they could give her a bigger role, especially if they don't want a new love interest for Peter right away (which they shouldnt) be the case. They could certainly make JJJ bitter due to his wife dying and eventually opening the door for may.

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 16 May  2014, 15:54

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 14 May  2014, 14:32

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 14 May  2014, 03:14
In the comics JJJ eventually marries May.

Yeah, just to clarify, JJJ Sr. did.  ;)

His son, the JJJ Jr., that's currently the topic of discussion (and who everyone is more familiar with), became the Mayor of New York. Something of which he recently quit at the end of of the Superior Spider-Man arc.

You're right. Just saying that could make for an interesting movie plotline; Sally Field's character is interesting enough that they could give her a bigger role, especially if they don't want a new love interest for Peter right away (which they shouldnt) be the case. They could certainly make JJJ bitter due to his wife dying and eventually opening the door for may.

Good point.  Sally Field is always a compelling actress and her character is interesting, but I also felt that 'TASM2' was struggling to give her stuff to do.  A romantic sub-plot might help.  I hope the new franchise doesn't end up with May discovering, or implying she knows, Peter's identity early on in the proceedings because her ignorance could potentially open the way up for a lot of intriguing storylines.  At the moment however she seems to be very pro-Spider-Man.

I've seen TASM 2 today and I liked it. It's not the best CBM but certainly one of the better ones if you ask me. I don't know why some hated it.

I think it got the humor right, I was a little worried about Peter's parents taking much of the creentime at the start but their scene paid off nicely later. I think Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had good chemistry, and while they weren't perfect I like them much more than Maguire and Dunst.

I thought dr Kafka and Rhino were funny, maybe unintentionally so. Also, wasn't dr. Kafka a woman in the comics? I would've liked if Rhino had the costume from the comics, it would've been over-the-top but I thought the suit of armor they gave him here was over-the-top as well.

I liked how they dealt with Electro here, not one of the best villains ever but I thought Jamie Foxx was good. I don't dislike Raimi's villains, but it annoyed me how they were killed off quickly and made too sympathetic, like Doc Ock was.

I know that "all roads with Gwen Stacy lead to death", but I thought it was a bit unfair that we got three movies of Mary Jane and she survived while Gwen only got two movies and died. I thought her death was handled well here although I didn't want it to happen since I like the character and the actress.

I liked Sally Field's scenes as aunt May too.


I think comparing the Osborns at this point wouldn't be entirely fair since James Franco's Harry appeared in all three movies and Willem Dafoe's Norman was the main antagonist while the new Norman was already on his deathbed.

I thought Harry's motivation for turning into the Green Goblin was decently done and I thought Dane DeHaan did okay overall, I thought his voice was kind of weird though.

I also like the little things like Peter having the 60's Spidey tune as his ringtone and when he whistles, and Peter talking to JJJ by e-mail.

I agree with riddler that it's better comic film and as Spidey fan I enjoyed it, probably a bit more than I enjoyed Raimi's when I first saw them. I also thought the score was great.


Will we see the Sinister Six in TASM 3?

I hope we don't see the Sinister Six too soon.  I'd prefer to see the villains built-up and developed slowly in order to establish their various identities.

Isn't there going to be a spin-off film where Harry recruits the Six?

As much as I've liked the two 'TASM' movies so far I do wish that the series had spent more time establishing Peter and Harry's relationship beforehand.  In retrospect, it would have been better if we'd gotten to meet Harry in the first film, in the way that James Franco's 'Harry Osborne' was built up in the first film as Peter's close friend, since it seems that Harry's 'Green Goblin' is going to be pivotal to the direction of the forthcoming movies in the franchise.

It would've been nice if their friendship was developed more in the new series, but  I'm not much of a fan of Harry Osborn as The Green Goblin. I prefer Norman. Too bad he's dead so we won't see his Goblin in this series.

If they try to do Venom again I hope they won't make Eddie Brock another "old friend" of Peter's, it would be too similar to Harry's. Maybe he could work at the Daily Bugle like he did in the 90's show.


What do you think the Sinister Six line-up will be? They've hinted at Doc Ock and Vulture and we already have Rhino and Electro available.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 18 May  2014, 16:40
It would've been nice if their friendship was developed more in the new series, but  I'm not much of a fan of Harry Osborn as The Green Goblin. I prefer Norman. Too bad he's dead so we won't see his Goblin in this series.

If they try to do Venom again I hope they won't make Eddie Brock another "old friend" of Peter's, it would be too similar to Harry's. Maybe he could work at the Daily Bugle like he did in the 90's show.


What do you think the Sinister Six line-up will be? They've hinted at Doc Ock and Vulture and we already have Rhino and Electro available.

Some people have speculated that Norman isn't really dead and is in fact cryogenically-frozen.  Remember, if you don't see the corpse all bets are off.

I hope Eddie Brock will be established over a couple of films before he turns into Venom.  I agree he shouldn't be an 'old friend' of Peter's, but he should be developed as a work colleague/rival at the Daily Bugle who has reasons for despising Parker.

I have no clue about the Sinister Six (by the way, despite my initial reservations based on the trailer, I actually liked Rhino's new look especially that last show when he did look like a rhino).  Like you say, we've got Rhino and Electro.  I agree about Dr Octopus and the Vulture.  What about Alistair Smythe, the Spider-Slayer?  He appeared in the film after all?

One thing I really didn't like about the film was the introduction of 'Felicia' assuming she turns out to be 'Felicia Hardy'.  She didn't strike me as being anything like the 'Felicia Hardy' from the comic-books, who is a much more vivacious spoiled rich girl type of character, and of course, platinum blonde not a brunette.

She could have been Felicia Hardy, I can't think of any other reason for giving her the name, if she is Felicia Hardy I don't like it either. I'd like to see Black Cat, but not with Felicia as Osborn's secretary (does everything have to be tied to Oscorp in some way?  :) )

I doubt Norman isn't dead, but I'll be happy if they do bring him back somehow.


I don't think they'll develop Eddie Brock over more than one film judging by how this franchise is going. That would be nice though.


Why do some people seem to hate TASM 2 so much? Are the haters mostly Raimi fans who miss the old series? :-\

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 18 May  2014, 17:31
She could have been Felicia Hardy, I can't think of any other reason for giving her the name, if she is Felicia Hardy I don't like it either. I'd like to see Black Cat, but not with Felicia as Osborn's secretary (does everything have to be tied to Oscorp in some way?  :) )

Agreed!  I don't understand what qualities this actress, Felicity Jones, has which makes her right for 'Felicia Hardy'.

QuoteI doubt Norman isn't dead, but I'll be happy if they do bring him back somehow.

It surprises me that they used such a high-profile actor, Chris Cooper, for a couple of scenes (one of which was a flashback).

QuoteI don't think they'll develop Eddie Brock over more than one film judging by how this franchise is going. That would be nice though.

They better not make the same mistakes the last franchise did by rushing Venom's origins.  >:(

QuoteWhy do some people seem to hate TASM 2 so much? Are the haters mostly Raimi fans who miss the old series? :-\

Who are the 'haters'?

I wish i was online this afternoon, you two brought up a lot of interesting points to discuss

QuoteIt surprises me that they used such a high-profile actor, Chris Cooper, for a couple of scenes (one of which was a flashback).

Interesting that while it is a regular thing in the comics for dead characters to come alive again, the only comic film which ever tried it was TMNT 2. The manner in which he was quickly disposed of as well as the buildup from the first film leads me to believe Norman will return

QuoteThey better not make the same mistakes the last franchise did by rushing Venom's origins.  >:(

They know the backlash spider-man 3 got over the venom treatment, no way they'd repeat it. The venom film is slated for 2017, the year after spidey 3. Originally I thought they may have gone the flash thompson Venom route but he wasn't in the second film.

QuoteWho are the 'haters'?

There's a few miscellaneous groups; some folks whom are extreme on one side of the DC/marvel debate hate everything on the other side. Nolanites hate on every CBM he doesn't touch and especially this one since it's nothing like a Nolan film, pretentious people who believe it makes them smarter if they enjoy a boring movie and thus would hate a film like this, and lastly Raimi fans.

QuoteShe could have been Felicia Hardy, I can't think of any other reason for giving her the name, if she is Felicia Hardy I don't like it either. I'd like to see Black Cat, but not with Felicia as Osborn's secretary (does everything have to be tied to Oscorp in some way?  :) )

So far the character doesn't match Felicia hardy but that being said she is a thief and thus could con her way to such a job. Or it could be an ambiguous nod similar to how the 2002 spider-man film had an unseen character named "Eddie" who'd been researching spider-man for the Bugle which it turned out couldn't have been Eddie Brock.

QuoteI hope Eddie Brock will be established over a couple of films before he turns into Venom.  I agree he shouldn't be an 'old friend' of Peter's, but he should be developed as a work colleague/rival at the Daily Bugle who has reasons for despising Parker.

As I wrote above, he'll have a maximum of one film pre-venom. I think that's fine. I mean a lot of people felt the Brock treatment in spider-man 3 would have been fine if they moved the church scene to the very end of the film and used the next one for Venom. Though it appears Venom will be heroic in his solo film as Carnage is in it so not sure if we'll get to see him take on spidey.

QuoteWhat do you think the Sinister Six line-up will be? They've hinted at Doc Ock and Vulture and we already have Rhino and Electro available.

Harry is available, I don't think Electro will be part of it but you never know. Lizard is available although Connors redeemed himself. There were hints at doc ock and vulture. I'm not sure how they'll do such a film since the sinister six are not protagonists so how will they have a superhero film without a hero?

Quoteand she survived while Gwen only got two movies and died. I thought her death was handled well here although I didn't want it to happen since I like the character and the actress.

Definitely agree although MJ was WAYYYY overused and wasted in the previous series, she passed her expiry date by the second film, the third was just overkill. With the rapid pace this films have moved I get that Webb is moving on from Gwen.


I think they got the humour they wanted; I don't think they were trying to make anyone fall out of their chair laughing, they were going for a few snickers and got them. Much better than the previous film in which several jokes missed the mark or there were scenes getting laughed AT (the breakup scene)

You make some great points riddler!  And I wish you'd been around earlier too so that Edd and my discussion could have been a three-way one.  :)

QuoteInteresting that while it is a regular thing in the comics for dead characters to come alive again, the only comic film which ever tried it was TMNT 2. The manner in which he was quickly disposed of as well as the buildup from the first film leads me to believe Norman will return

It may have been you that planted the notion in my head, but it's a good one that makes a lot of sense.  I hope Norman does come back.  It would make for a great surprise.

In most cases, the villains don't return in these films because we see the corpse.  For instance, in the Burton/Schumacher films we see the Joker, Penguin, Max Shreck and Two-Face die onscreen and the remains of their corpses.  Then again, with the Nolan franchise I always kept expecting Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face to come back because there wasn't the sense of finality to their fates in 'Batman Begins' and 'TDK' that we got in the earlier Batman franchise.  I think Nolan was trying to hedge his bets.  ::)

QuoteThey know the backlash spider-man 3 got over the venom treatment, no way they'd repeat it. The venom film is slated for 2017, the year after spidey 3. Originally I thought they may have gone the flash thompson Venom route but he wasn't in the second film.

It's a shame they didn't bring Flash back.  I'd have liked to have seen more from Parker's high school including the likes of Liz Allen, and the rest of the snooty popular kids that used to torment Parker.  I always liked that element from the comic-books as clichéd as it might have been.

Then again, the upshot of Thompson not returning is that he won't be Venom.  I'd much rather Eddie Brock became Venom, although I suppose there is an interesting logic to Thompson becoming Venom too.  A popular high school athlete who ends up an alcoholic loser post-high school and seeks to take it out on the guy he used to bully.

QuoteAs I wrote above, he'll have a maximum of one film pre-venom. I think that's fine. I mean a lot of people felt the Brock treatment in spider-man 3 would have been fine if they moved the church scene to the very end of the film and used the next one for Venom. Though it appears Venom will be heroic in his solo film as Carnage is in it so not sure if we'll get to see him take on spidey.

I was one of those people who thought that 'Spider-Man 3' should have ended with the church scene and a set-up for 'Spider-Man 4'.  If Raimi had done that I wonder if Sony would have still canned his ass from the franchise.  Of course there's no point dwelling on the past but it could have gone two ways.  A cliffhanger ending might have forced Sony's hand and compelled them to bring Raimi back for a fourth film.  However, if Sony can get rid of Raimi even after 'Spider-Man 3' became the biggest film of its year maybe they wouldn't have cared about frustrating cinema-viewers with an unresolved ending.  Look at 'Green Lantern'...that set up future instalments with 'Sinestro' that were not to be, and even the wonderful MCU has its own example, what with Dr Samuel Sterns turning into 'The Leader' in 'The Incredible Hulk'.  Sadly I doubt we'll ever see a resolution to that set-up since Tim Blake-Nelson is now appearing in 'The Fantastic Four' as a future Mole-Man.  >:(

I like the idea of Venom becoming a conflicted villain/anti-hero rather than an out-and-out evil guy but I would prefer that he was set up as Spider-Man's nemesis first before we saw him spun-off into his own Venom franchise.  On that basis, maybe the filmmakers will bring back Flash Thompson because at least he has already been partly established, and it would make sense for him to be one of the six recruited into the 'Sinister Six', but unlike the others he gets a conscience and reforms whilst in jail.  I don't really see Thompson as that type of criminal however.  He's just a thuggish jock.  Not someone with a dark tormented side.

QuoteHarry is available, I don't think Electro will be part of it but you never know. Lizard is available although Connors redeemed himself. There were hints at doc ock and vulture. I'm not sure how they'll do such a film since the sinister six are not protagonists so how will they have a superhero film without a hero?

At least they'd be breaking some new ground, but since 'TASM2' has underperformed somewhat at the box-office, at least domestically, will anyone care to see a film exclusively featuring the villains?

QuoteDefinitely agree although MJ was WAYYYY overused and wasted in the previous series, she passed her expiry date by the second film, the third was just overkill. With the rapid pace this films have moved I get that Webb is moving on from Gwen.

The earlier franchise repeated itself too often with MJ getting kidnapped and imperilled all the time.  Then again, I think that's why it was probably a good thing the series ended at three films.  It really does feel like a three-film arc that delivers on Parker's introduction at the very start that this is a 'story about a girl'.  It's also the 'Harry Osborne' saga, an arc that is established and completed within the trilogy.  So in essence, the 'Parker, MJ, Osborne love triangle' trilogy.

As for the new franchise, I like Gwen.  She was well-written and performed and I'm glad she wasn't in peril all the time but over the course of two films was helping Parker rather than needing to be rescued by Spider-Man.  In fact, the one time she did need to be saved, Spider-Man failed...

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 18 May  2014, 23:29
You make some great points riddler!  And I wish you'd been around earlier too so that Edd and my discussion could have been a three-way one.  :)

QuoteInteresting that while it is a regular thing in the comics for dead characters to come alive again, the only comic film which ever tried it was TMNT 2. The manner in which he was quickly disposed of as well as the buildup from the first film leads me to believe Norman will return

It may have been you that planted the notion in my head, but it's a good one that makes a lot of sense.  I hope Norman does come back.  It would make for a great surprise.

In most cases, the villains don't return in these films because we see the corpse.  For instance, in the Burton/Schumacher films we see the Joker, Penguin, Max Shreck and Two-Face die onscreen and the remains of their corpses.  Then again, with the Nolan franchise I always kept expecting Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face to come back because there wasn't the sense of finality to their fates in 'Batman Begins' and 'TDK' that we got in the earlier Batman franchise.  I think Nolan was trying to hedge his bets.  ::)

QuoteThey know the backlash spider-man 3 got over the venom treatment, no way they'd repeat it. The venom film is slated for 2017, the year after spidey 3. Originally I thought they may have gone the flash thompson Venom route but he wasn't in the second film.

It's a shame they didn't bring Flash back.  I'd have liked to have seen more from Parker's high school including the likes of Liz Allen, and the rest of the snooty popular kids that used to torment Parker.  I always liked that element from the comic-books as clichéd as it might have been.

Then again, the upshot of Thompson not returning is that he won't be Venom.  I'd much rather Eddie Brock became Venom, although I suppose there is an interesting logic to Thompson becoming Venom too.  A popular high school athlete who ends up an alcoholic loser post-high school and seeks to take it out on the guy he used to bully.

QuoteAs I wrote above, he'll have a maximum of one film pre-venom. I think that's fine. I mean a lot of people felt the Brock treatment in spider-man 3 would have been fine if they moved the church scene to the very end of the film and used the next one for Venom. Though it appears Venom will be heroic in his solo film as Carnage is in it so not sure if we'll get to see him take on spidey.

I was one of those people who thought that 'Spider-Man 3' should have ended with the church scene and a set-up for 'Spider-Man 4'.  If Raimi had done that I wonder if Sony would have still canned his ass from the franchise.  Of course there's no point dwelling on the past but it could have gone two ways.  A cliffhanger ending might have forced Sony's hand and compelled them to bring Raimi back for a fourth film.  However, if Sony can get rid of Raimi even after 'Spider-Man 3' became the biggest film of its year maybe they wouldn't have cared about frustrating cinema-viewers with an unresolved ending.  Look at 'Green Lantern'...that set up future instalments with 'Sinestro' that were not to be, and even the wonderful MCU has its own example, what with Dr Samuel Sterns turning into 'The Leader' in 'The Incredible Hulk'.  Sadly I doubt we'll ever see a resolution to that set-up since Tim Blake-Nelson is now appearing in 'The Fantastic Four' as a future Mole-Man.  >:(

I like the idea of Venom becoming a conflicted villain/anti-hero rather than an out-and-out evil guy but I would prefer that he was set up as Spider-Man's nemesis first before we saw him spun-off into his own Venom franchise.  On that basis, maybe the filmmakers will bring back Flash Thompson because at least he has already been partly established, and it would make sense for him to be one of the six recruited into the 'Sinister Six', but unlike the others he gets a conscience and reforms whilst in jail.  I don't really see Thompson as that type of criminal however.  He's just a thuggish jock.  Not someone with a dark tormented side.

QuoteHarry is available, I don't think Electro will be part of it but you never know. Lizard is available although Connors redeemed himself. There were hints at doc ock and vulture. I'm not sure how they'll do such a film since the sinister six are not protagonists so how will they have a superhero film without a hero?

At least they'd be breaking some new ground, but since 'TASM2' has underperformed somewhat at the box-office, at least domestically, will anyone care to see a film exclusively featuring the villains?

QuoteDefinitely agree although MJ was WAYYYY overused and wasted in the previous series, she passed her expiry date by the second film, the third was just overkill. With the rapid pace this films have moved I get that Webb is moving on from Gwen.

The earlier franchise repeated itself too often with MJ getting kidnapped and imperilled all the time.  Then again, I think that's why it was probably a good thing the series ended at three films.  It really does feel like a three-film arc that delivers on Parker's introduction at the very start that this is a 'story about a girl'.  It's also the 'Harry Osborne' saga, an arc that is established and completed within the trilogy.  So in essence, the 'Parker, MJ, Osborne love triangle' trilogy.

As for the new franchise, I like Gwen.  She was well-written and performed and I'm glad she wasn't in peril all the time but over the course of two films was helping Parker rather than needing to be rescued by Spider-Man.  In fact, the one time she did need to be saved, Spider-Man failed...

I guess Flash's character already went through the arc in the first film; he was a jerk at the beginning, He was a jerk at the beginning, then Peter humiliates him, he tries to be nice to Peter and Pete humiliates him then at the end they share a nice moment. So there may not have been a need for him in the second film.

Flash is not a villainous venom; he loses his legs in the army and is given the symbiote by the government.

Raimi and co left after negotiations broke down, if he was willing to be a 'company man' he would have returned. I'm nearly positive that if the Venom transformation scene was at the end of the film we'd have a spider-man 4. Even without Raimi, the fan anticipation for a Venom film would have been outstanding.


Venoms story arc would need to develop Eddie Brock while sumutaneously giving spidey the black suit, then have Venom as a villain followed by the Venom becoming a hero. The Venom film is supposed to have Carnage so the question is can the full arc be reached in two films? Or will the Carnage transformation happen at the end the say supider-man 3 should have done Venom?


Gwen went out on a high. She saved peter more times than he saved her.  That puts Dunst/MJ to shame.

I agree that Gwen went out on a high compared to MJ but I think I would've liked it better  if she was in one more movie. I really liked her character.

I don't really like the idea of the Sinister Six being tied to Oscorp which means they'll be more like Harry Osborn's henchmen than their own thing.

I would love it if Norman was still alive, I'll actually be disappointed if the few scenes in TASM 2 will be all we've got of him in the new franchise.

I hope we get the see the Daily Bugle and JJJ in the third film.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 May  2014, 11:14
I agree that Gwen went out on a high compared to MJ but I think I would've liked it better  if she was in one more movie. I really liked her character.

I don't really like the idea of the Sinister Six being tied to Oscorp which means they'll be more like Harry Osborn's henchmen than their own thing.

I would love it if Norman was still alive, I'll actually be disappointed if the few scenes in TASM 2 will be all we've got of him in the new franchise.

I hope we get the see the Daily Bugle and JJJ in the third film.

I think the danger in using Gwen for a third film would be that she would end up in peril again and again like MJ did, although these films do need to find a way to make the girlfriend character interesting without always putting her in the heart of danger or turning her into her own action star.

I agree with you about the Sinister Six.  I hope each of them will have their own personality, background and reason for hating Spider-Man.

We see Parker answering a few emails from JJJ in 'TASM2' so it's very likely JJJ will appear in the next film. :)

I hope he will appear.


Do you think they'll introduce a new girlfriend in the next films, like Mary Jane Watson? If they do, I hope they make her more like the comics and less like Kirsten Dunst's version.

Some say Felicia will eventually become the Black Cat in this series. Like I said before, I'd like that, but I can't really picture Felicity Jones' character as Felicia Hardy. Maybe they'll make me change my mind about her.

Developing six villains is difficult though. I wonder how it will all turn out.


If they do Eddie Brock as well, the series will really feel like comics with so many characters involved.


Imagine having Spider-Man fight the Sinister Six while wearing the black suit that affects his personality. I'd like to see that on film.

QuoteDo you think they'll introduce a new girlfriend in the next films, like Mary Jane Watson? If they do, I hope they make her more like the comics and less like Kirsten Dunst's version.

MJ was cast and shot a few scenes for ASM2, they decided to cut her out to avoid excess characters. I think we can assume she'll be in the third film but hopefully not as a love interest. I want gwen to have a lasting effect on Peter as opposed to him jumping back in with a new girl. Emma Stone is contracted so expect her to be a presence similar to Dennis Leary and Martin Sheen

QuoteImagine having Spider-Man fight the Sinister Six while wearing the black suit that affects his personality. I'd like to see that on film.

I'm hoping we get to see a proper symbiote spider-man. No goofy dance scenes, now that we have a less nerdy spider-man, show Garfield under the influence. The advantage is that they can have the hero act villainous and blame the suit. So if they want to set up a darker bitter JJJ, it could work better with a more bitter spidey. It could also develop a true hatred with Harry and Peter; have a dark Peter actually go out of his way to seek revenge on Harry.

QuoteI would love it if Norman was still alive, I'll actually be disappointed if the few scenes in TASM 2 will be all we've got of him in the new franchise.

One interesting comparison with the previous series; we all remember the backlash over Venom getting killed right after the 2007 film came out- a time we assumed the series would continue. Yet so far I haven't seen a backlash over the green goblin- possibly because harry is still alive but if Norman stays dead, it could be deemed an equally shabby treatment.

QuoteI think the danger in using Gwen for a third film would be that she would end up in peril again and again like MJ did, although these films do need to find a way to make the girlfriend character interesting without always putting her in the heart of danger or turning her into her own action star.

I kind of would have preferred another film with Gwen but I give it a pass on the basis that it was rather authentic with the comics; though it could have been just as easy to save Harry becoming the goblin for the next film and have the Rhino fight Spidey.

QuoteI hope we get the see the Daily Bugle and JJJ in the third film.

I think Webb confirmed we'll see JJJ and presumably the Bugle. Without Gwen there'll be scenes opened up for a new setting and it'll be a nice change from Oscorp.

I kind of feel like this series hinges on this next film especially being Webb (and possibly Garfields last); it's critical they get Venom right. Especially after his treatment the last series (which was fine the way it ended but would have sucked if it went on and we only got those 10 minutes). This is their chance to blow the Raimi films out of the water, it's still debatable about which series was better but if they do Venom justice I think that could clinch it for the new series. But there's also the potential in them messing up Venom and the Green Goblin and then the argument would be "at least Raimi gave us the Green Goblin"

For the record, I think Willem Dafoe's performance was good even though the suit certainlydidn't help the audience to take the Green Goblin seriously.

Alfred Molina was good as Doc Ock even if I didn't like the way he was portrayed. He should've been more of a villain, like he was in the comics.

I really hope they'll do the Symbiote Spider-Man justice too. They could make a great movie with Symbiote Spider-Man with setting up Venom at the end for another one.


What other villains would you like to see? I'd like to see the Scorpion, maybe.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 22 May  2014, 16:35
For the record, I think Willem Dafoe's performance was good even though the suit certainlydidn't help the audience to take the Green Goblin seriously.

Alfred Molina was good as Doc Ock even if I didn't like the way he was portrayed. He should've been more of a villain, like he was in the comics.

I really hope they'll do the Symbiote Spider-Man justice too. They could make a great movie with Symbiote Spider-Man with setting up Venom at the end for another one.


What other villains would you like to see? I'd like to see the Scorpion, maybe.

if they take on the idea of a darker JJJ then definitely scorpion. I do like the idea of having different types of villains; so for instance they've done electro and green goblin, I'd rather they stay away from shocker and hobgoblin. I'd rather avoid sandman for the simple reason he was the only non arch-nemesis shown in the last series.


One drawback is that all the villains in the 5 movies other than Venom has been sympathetic to an extent;
Green Goblin- Norman Osborn corrupted by the goblin
Doc Ock- redeems himself and was a role moden
Sandman- the daughter aspect
Harry Osborn
the Lizard- Peter's mentor/Richards parter
Electro; good guy corrupted and unwillingly given powers

I kind of want to see an all out bad guy that we root for spdier-man to destroy. Perhaps Rhino will be such a baddie.


I agree with you on Doc Ock. They got him right for the most part but they made him too tragic and sympathetic. I'm not sure if Raimi had the third film planned out by that point but there was no reason to turn every villain into a good guy.

Dafoe was excellent in his role. Given the fact that he didn't design the costume he did the best he could. Definitely though his character was portrayed too cartoony. I'd have preferred a more organic costume with more purple on it; for instance more of a mask and suit than a full body shield. It's a shame too because Dafoe did most of his own stunts but you would never know that without being told. I don't think the duality was properly portrayed, Norman Osborn seemed too different from the green goblin.

Doc Ock definitely wasn't sympathetic in the comics and I liked him better there. Same with Sadman, he was just a bad guy. I understand why Raimi wanted to make them sympathetic but I'd like to see a Spider-Man  villain on film who is a really negative character. Rhino seems to be like that but he's not really a main villain like the Goblin or Doc Ock.

I liked the Green Goblin too but like you said he was portrayed too cartoony and I would have wanted the duality aspect dropped entirely.  Norman Osborn in the comics didn't have a good side and an evil "Goblin" that was controlling him, he was the villain himself. I'm sure Dafoe would've been even better with these issues out of the way. Same with Alfred Molina and Doc Ock.


I thought Electro was OK in TASM 2, though I didn't think Max Dillon was that interesting. The Lizard was fine as the first villain but it could've been developed better, if they showed doctor Connors' family it would've been good.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 22 May  2014, 17:51
Doc Ock definitely wasn't sympathetic in the comics and I liked him better there. Same with Sadman, he was just a bad guy. I understand why Raimi wanted to make them sympathetic but I'd like to see a Spider-Man  villain on film who is a really negative character. Rhino seems to be like that but he's not really a main villain like the Goblin or Doc Ock.

I liked the Green Goblin too but like you said he was portrayed too cartoony and I would have wanted the duality aspect dropped entirely.  Norman Osborn in the comics didn't have a good side and an evil "Goblin" that was controlling him, he was the villain himself. I'm sure Dafoe would've been even better with these issues out of the way. Same with Alfred Molina and Doc Ock.


I thought Electro was OK in TASM 2, though I didn't think Max Dillon was that interesting. The Lizard was fine as the first villain but it could've been developed better, if they showed doctor Connors' family it would've been good.

I'm fine with Lizard being sympathetic, they kind of have to give his tragic story and splicing with a reptile.

One common denominator from these films is many of the villains have been bullied to an extent by bosses; Dafoes character was forced to speed up human trials, likewise for Connors funding, Max Dillon was treated badly and the board was trying to force Harry out.

I didn't like the sympathetic Max Dillon character as much as could have been. Jamie Foxx is kind of a jerk, i'd have preferred to let him get bad; picture his character from Any Given sunday with powers giving everyone he hated an FU.

James Horner on The Amazing Spider-Man series:

Quote"To me, the whole thing about doing the movie was I liked the director and there was a chance to write something for the two lead characters and then she dies in the next movie," Horner said. "But the next movie ended up being so terrible, I didn't want to do it. It was just dreadful."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/james-horner-says-amazing-spider-man-2-was-terrible-producers-didnt-want-marc-webbs-input-20141208

And rumours about Marvel regaining some rights to the character for the MCU:

Quote
Fans should not lose hope of seeing Spider Man in Marvel's Captain America 3: Civil War, just yet. Recent reports suggest that Spidey could still become part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe and join The Avengers.

According to Latino Review, Sony Entertainment (which currently holds the rights to Spider Man) and Marvel Studios are currently negotiating a deal to share the rights at a 60/40 split.

However, as per the report, Marvel's not inclined to give Sony creative control over the character, "nor planning on honoring the contracts with Sony's Spider-Stars."

Which essentially means that if the deal works out, current Spider Man star Andrew Garfield will no longer play the superhero on screen. The website also reports that Marvel intends to start the franchise with a clean slate and move away from the romantic love story angle which was a strong part of the earlier films.

"If the Marvel/Sony deal were to go forward, Andrew Garfield would no longer be Peter Parker and any baggage from existing films, Raimi or Webb, would be non-canonical, Marvel doesn't want any part of those films.

"The idea is that the Spider-Man romance movie has been played out over five installments, so any new Spider-Man film would focus more on the difficulties of being a teenager, with the romantic element as just a side story.

"Marvel also thinks that the origin story is well-trodden territory, so any Spider-Man movies under this deal would begin with Peter Parker already leading a dual life. Spider-Man making his debut in Captain America: Civil War is still a distinct possibility and would serve as the character's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/james-horner-says-amazing-spider-man-2-was-terrible-producers-didnt-want-marc-webbs-input-20141208

I watched TASM2 awhile ago, and while I can definitely say that the villains were the weakest part of the movie, I didn't think the movie was as bad as people make it out to be. I don't need to hear someone like Dark Knight fanboys talk about underdeveloped villains when their favourite movie in the world is just as guilty of that and a lot more. In hindsight, it's amazing how nobody else in Hollywood figured out that all you need to do is have the villains take themselves so seriously and you'll get away with whatever nonsense the script is because you're "dark and gritty".  ::)

In my opinion, the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and how Peter's guilt for betraying his promise to George Stacy is what made the movie for me. It might be a retread to focus on Peter Parker's romantic relationship , but I thought it was done well, and Gwen Stacy's death was a tragic and believable moment.

If the rumours about the current Spider-Man franchise coming to a premature end are true, then it's a shame. Especially when this movie ended on a rather unfinished note too.

If the Sony/Marvel deal doesn't pan out, I wonder how the talks between Raimi and Sony truly went? Could be a Bryan Singer type scenario there, as it had been well over 10 years before Singer returned to the X-Men franchise.

The "Spider-Man as an adult" scenario sounds intriguing enough if that turns out to be the plan. As it's true Peter hasn't been a teen in the classic 616 universe in decades. Unfortunately, the amount of reboots Spidey is, apparently, likely to get in such a short time frame is excessive to say the least.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 14 Dec  2014, 03:33
And rumours about Marvel regaining some rights to the character for the MCU:

Quote
Fans should not lose hope of seeing Spider Man in Marvel's Captain America 3: Civil War, just yet. Recent reports suggest that Spidey could still become part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe and join The Avengers.

According to Latino Review, Sony Entertainment (which currently holds the rights to Spider Man) and Marvel Studios are currently negotiating a deal to share the rights at a 60/40 split.

However, as per the report, Marvel's not inclined to give Sony creative control over the character, "nor planning on honoring the contracts with Sony's Spider-Stars."

Which essentially means that if the deal works out, current Spider Man star Andrew Garfield will no longer play the superhero on screen. The website also reports that Marvel intends to start the franchise with a clean slate and move away from the romantic love story angle which was a strong part of the earlier films.

"If the Marvel/Sony deal were to go forward, Andrew Garfield would no longer be Peter Parker and any baggage from existing films, Raimi or Webb, would be non-canonical, Marvel doesn't want any part of those films.

"The idea is that the Spider-Man romance movie has been played out over five installments, so any new Spider-Man film would focus more on the difficulties of being a teenager, with the romantic element as just a side story.

"Marvel also thinks that the origin story is well-trodden territory, so any Spider-Man movies under this deal would begin with Peter Parker already leading a dual life. Spider-Man making his debut in Captain America: Civil War is still a distinct possibility and would serve as the character's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/james-horner-says-amazing-spider-man-2-was-terrible-producers-didnt-want-marc-webbs-input-20141208

I watched TASM2 awhile ago, and while I can definitely say that the villains were the weakest part of the movie, I didn't think the movie was as bad as people make it out to be. I don't need to hear someone like Dark Knight fanboys talk about underdeveloped villains when their favourite movie in the world is just as guilty of that and a lot more. In hindsight, it's amazing how nobody else in Hollywood figured out that all you need to do is have the villains take themselves so seriously and you'll get away with whatever nonsense the script is because you're "dark and gritty".  ::)

In my opinion, the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and how Peter's guilt for betraying his promise to George Stacy is what made the movie for me. It might be a retread to focus on Peter Parker's romantic relationship , but I thought it was done well, and Gwen Stacy's death was a tragic and believable moment.

If the rumours about the current Spider-Man franchise coming to a premature end are true, then it's a shame. Especially when this movie ended on a rather unfinished note too.

I like this rumour.

Sure, TASM2 wasn't that bad, at all, and it would be a shame that the series ended so prematurely, but ultimately, I still think it fell way short of the MCU films particularly in terms of offering a coherent narrative.  Spider-Man is Sony's only comic-book property so clearly they were in a rush to expand that universe and develop various spin-off films ASAP (including a Sinister Six and Venom film) and sadly it shows in the film's execution.

Unlike the various MCU films which took time to develop their stories organically before building up to The Avengers team-movie, TASM2 suffered from that common problem among many sub-par comic-book movies: trying to cram in as many villains as possible (in fact this was the same problem that scuppered Spider-Man 3 and ironically prompted Sony to reboot the series in the first place).  The apparent childhood friendship between Peter and Harry was contrived with all the inelegance of a daytime soap-opera (why didn't we hear anything about their friendship in the first film in which Peter was up against Oscorp?), and unlike Sam Raimi's Spider-Man there was no real sense of pathos when Harry turned bad; the audience hadn't witnessed any connection between Garfield's Parker and Dane DeHaan's Harry akin to the chemistry Tobey Maguire and James Franco had developed, in the same roles, throughout the course of three films.

Although I'd ideally like to see some backstory, although not necessarily yet another origin story, were Spider-Man to be incorporated into the MCU, I would simply be happy to see him interact alongside the established Avengers, and act as a wise-cracking counter-point to some of the more earnest members.

I also like the idea of Parker remaining a teenager throughout a number of films as I feel that both Raimi and Marc Webb rather skimped on those early high school years in Parker's life, and as the article states, focused too early on Parker's epic romances rather than those awkward adolescent years when he was the scorn of both his male and female classmates.  Spider-Man could be like a release, a 'Mask'-like alter-ego that allows the shy, bullied Parker to cut loose and unleash his comical, mischievous id. 

I see a lot of people hated the TASM movies. I liked them better than the Raimi films, really.

They each have their strengths and weaknesses, with the Raimi films being more coherent stories and having more memorable villains and with Webb's films having superior lead actors and getting thew wise-cracking Spider-Man right.

If they have to reboot it, I'd like to see them try and combine the good points in these franchises, but start off with Peter already as Spider-Man. Showing another origin story is really unnecessary. And they can always use flashbacks.

I wish the rumor turns out to be true because Spidey works really well paired with other Marvel superheroes, and I think that's because he's not like any of the rest, he's a teenager with superpowers, and yet he has the same problems teenagers have.

Showing Peter more as a teenager also would have to include his experiences with girls, remember he had no problem asking girls out as Peter Parker but he would be turned down in favor of Flash Thompson or Ned Leeds. He was bullied but he wasn't scared and he made fun of it even if he was forced to pretend he was weak so that no one would suspect he was Spider-Man. He had his moments of wanting to give up because of a romantic rejection or lack of appreciation for his heroic deeds, but he realised that he must continue.

Marvel has done a good job with adapting their characters so far, I expect no less from adapting their flagship character

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 15 Dec  2014, 19:31
I see a lot of people hated the TASM movies. I liked them better than the Raimi films, really.

They each have their strengths and weaknesses, with the Raimi films being more coherent stories and having more memorable villains and with Webb's films having superior lead actors and getting thew wise-cracking Spider-Man right.

If they have to reboot it, I'd like to see them try and combine the good points in these franchises, but start off with Peter already as Spider-Man. Showing another origin story is really unnecessary. And they can always use flashbacks.

I wish the rumor turns out to be true because Spidey works really well paired with other Marvel superheroes, and I think that's because he's not like any of the rest, he's a teenager with superpowers, and yet he has the same problems teenagers have.

Showing Peter more as a teenager also would have to include his experiences with girls, remember he had no problem asking girls out as Peter Parker but he would be turned down in favor of Flash Thompson or Ned Leeds. He was bullied but he wasn't scared and he made fun of it even if he was forced to pretend he was weak so that no one would suspect he was Spider-Man. He had his moments of wanting to give up because of a romantic rejection or lack of appreciation for his heroic deeds, but he realised that he must continue.

Marvel has done a good job with adapting their characters so far, I expect no less from adapting their flagship character

I maintain that the biggest reason people hate on the Webb spidey films are the circumstances instead of the films themselves; The Raimi films were all heavily hyped especially 1 and 3. There wasn't quite the same appetite for the reboot in 2012 for the resurgence. There are also bitter fans of the first series who had ill will on the reboot. And of course with the Avengers and th dark knight rises being released in the last 3 months, those were tough acts to follow.


The reality is that every character who appears in both series was upgraded the second time around with the exception of the Osborns. Tobey Maguire was terrible especially by the 3rd film. The only thing he got right was the nerdy pre spider-man Parker, which makes me wonder if that is why the spider-man no more plot was included in the second film. The third film greatly suffered when Tobey had to show confidence. You can say anything you like about Gatfield but he didn't draw unintended laughs the way Maguire did.
While mildly intrigued about the potential about a Raimi sequel I wouldn't have interest if the same cast is involved; next to JK Simmons, James Franco was the most fitting actor in that original series. Nothing against Dylan Baker but I doubt he could carry a film as the lead villain.


I do hope the Webb series continues; its obvious that the second film was a set up film similar to Iron Man 2.

I agree riddler, there were a lot of bitter fans as well as casual fans who complained that a reboot wasn't interesting enough to compare to the Avnegers or TDKR. And now it seems that TASM 3 has been delayed for 2018 with the Sinister Six movie to be released in 2016. A lot can happen until then. I'm not so sure about this franchise's future, unfortunately...

Interesting that Marc Webb said Norman Osborn would return, so he;s not dead after all, and you guys were right.  :)

Well we knew that Osborn couldn't be dead, what kind of director brings in a major villain for a few scenes then kills him off ;)


I was excited about this spider-man universe but don't really understand how they can have a Venom movie  without the symbiote developed; you need 1 or 2 movies before having a protagonist venom; one with spidey having the suit and then spidey fight venom.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10686739_581262395338836_3876249312252671629_n.jpg?oh=c2099113cab1404e4eea5a5fc097224c&oe=554752D4&__gda__=1426223112_01c67dd00f2a3950f77a4879a8044aec)

Marvel President Alan Fine allegedly hated TASM 2's script so much that he wanted to "burn" it. Here is an alleged email he wrote that was exposed in this Sony hacking crisis. But for all I know, it could have been faked because the email is dated back to two years ago.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5M-ePRIgAAhwrY.png)

Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112638

I can understand the complaints about the underdeveloped villains, but then again nobody cared too much about that in the recent Batman films. Sure, the TASM series probably retreads old ground here and there too, but judging them as they are, I don't think they're too bad.

I find it bizarre that he suggested these films should've served as a prequel to the Raimi ones.

This series fixed practically everything people hated about the previous series;

-no constant narrating
-no monologues from Aunt May
-Peter Parker not a super nerd
-no crying
-the soap opera with Mary Jane replaced by an interesting dynamic
-the damsel in distress clichee replaced with a heroic love interest
-despite being under developed, the villains are less cartoony

Yes, riddler, but some movie fans are impossible to please, I guess they'd have wanted Maguire and Dunst to return and to fix all the problems as well.  ::)

If anyone attempts to use box office results as an argument for how good a movie is, the spider-man series is a simple counter argument;

The spidey film with the most box office indake was the 2007 film. Good luck arguing that one is the best.

Well you guys are going to laugh - there are people on the internet complaining that Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker as 'too cool' because he skates and isn't a cartoonish nerd. I'm not kidding.  ::)

I won't argue that the new films retreads on a lot of stuff from Raimi i.e. relationships, tragic villains, but some of the complaints, like Oscorp being tied to Peter Parker's destiny in becoming Spider-Man, are just petty. Besides, if people can accept Batman being trained by the League of Shadows Assassins and becomes involved in a conspiracy to keep a lawyer's reputation clean, then the Oscorp sub-plot shouldn't bother them too much.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Dec  2014, 07:01
Well you guys are going to laugh - there are people on the internet complaining that Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker as 'too cool' because he skates and isn't a cartoonish nerd. I'm not kidding.  ::)

I won't argue that the new films retreads on a lot of stuff from Raimi i.e. relationships, tragic villains, but some of the complaints, like Oscorp being tied to Peter Parker's destiny in becoming Spider-Man, are just petty. Besides, if people can accept Batman being trained by the League of Shadows Assassins and becomes involved in a conspiracy to keep a lawyer's reputation clean, then the Oscorp sub-plot shouldn't bother them too much.

People who complain about that stuff are just looking for things to whine about; they complain about having too many characters and plotlines, well bonding them all to Oscorp is one way to get around that sort of thing. It's not like these movies invented Parker's parents and their importance, in the ultimate arc, richard parker is responsible for the Venom Symbiote.

The relationship aspect is anything but a retread from the raimi films, the only manner similar is that Peter is a heterosexual in both lines. Even the biggest detractors of the new films concede that the love story was well done whereas the Peter/Mary Jane plot lines in the previous one was unbelievably tiresome. "Oh look Peter is into a girl, Webb never would have come up with that idea if Raimi didn't do it first".

the tragic villains I agree with; the Lizard has a similar arc to Doc Ock, Electro with the Sand man, Harry as Venom. I think we've all been longing for a spider-man film with a joker like villain who isn't redeeming and just a bad guy. We'll probably get that with Rhino if the story continues.


The people who complain about Garfield don't read the comics. And I don't think Garfield is perfect I think they can do better but he's far and away better than Maguire; Peter parker is a smartass genius not an aimless whiny, crying wimp constantly pondering life every day. The only time Maguires character showed intelligence was during class. As spider-man he was routinely out smarted by villains relying on either the villains to see the error of their own ways, getting help from Harry, or dumb luck. If this series ever does the sand man expect Parker to use science against him.

I was onboard with Garfield as Parker, Stone as Gwen, and the idea of rebooting with Peter in high school while incorporating more comic book elements that Raimi didn't explore. That said, the first Amazing Spider-Man didn't work for me when I saw it. I felt it ran way too long,  the storyline was a clunky mess, and, despite Garfield's best efforts, I didn't feel for this take on Peter. If anything, I gained more appreciation for Raimi's take when walking out of it. I didn't see the second one as the trailers, clips, and general ideas just didn't appeal to me.

So I'm not going to shed tears if this take on the series is already dying, as the Sony leaks seem to imply. The leaks also show that the Sony execs are just scrambling to find ways to keep the franchise alive through different casting/adapting different stories, but genuinely don't have a clue what their next steps are gonna be.

If Marvel Studios can actually pull off taking over this franchise and bringing their new creative take on Spidey into one of their films, then more power to them. I think the ideas that've been reported on their end are the right way to go since I'm not interested in seeing the Amazing Spider-Man universe integrated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and think that if they're gonna do a rebooted take, it makes sense to bring him on in a supporting role first, along the lines of Ruffalo's Bruce Banner in Avengers, before expanding on him later. Ideally, this version could combine the elements that people liked about the last two takes.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-swings-marvel-studios-772127

Marvel Studios is officially teaming up with Sony to integrate the character into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Hollywood Reporter is saying that Andrew Garfield is not expected to return and that this will be a new take on Spidey. No word yet on what this means for the planned Sinister Six movie, but it's probably dead, for the best.

Personally, I couldn't be happier. While I didn't really have a problem with Garfield, he would definitely bring baggage with him and I think the MCU should start fresh with the character and not have to associate itself with the TASM movies.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 10 Feb  2015, 05:36
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-swings-marvel-studios-772127

Marvel Studios is officially teaming up with Sony to integrate the character into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Hollywood Reporter is saying that Andrew Garfield is not expected to return and that this will be a new take on Spidey. No word yet on what this means for the planned Sinister Six movie, but it's probably dead, for the best.

Personally, I couldn't be happier. While I didn't really have a problem with Garfield, he would definitely bring baggage with him and I think the MCU should start fresh with the character and not have to associate itself with the TASM movies.

I think we're going to need a new thread for this reboot.

Do you think third time will be a charm? :)

By the way, I'm stoked about this news too.  I just hope Sony take all of Marvel Studio's creative guidance when it comes to making the solo Spidey films (even if they reap the profits) so that both studios can benefit (MS don't want to be lumbered with a second-rate Spider-Man as part of their Avengers movies).

i watched the two amazing spider-man films yesterday for the first time in a year (3rd time overall for the 2nd film and 4th time watching the 1st). So basically this was my first time watching these films knowing the series was over and the plotlines would not be further resolved.

There definitely was a change in tone between them. The 2nd film was much darker. The 1st film glossed over the sad parts (Ben and captains deaths). Something I found kind of interesting; in the 2nd Raimi film, Aunt may gives a much maligned speech about the hero in all of us; in this series you can tell Webb tried to make more characters heroic (and by actually doing heroic things instead of preaching like Raimis characters did)
-Gwen stacey is very heroic, I don't think I need to go into detail there as it's been discussed to death
-Martin Sheen actually tried to physically stop the shooter instead of preaching to him
-Curt Conners starts out with noble intentions (though so do all Raimis villains other than Eddie Brock)
-Aunt May holds her own health problems inside and you see her step up and take charge in the hospital in the 2nd film when Electro messes with the power
-Dennis Leary actually goes after the lizard while James Cromwell sat back and barked orders on the radio.

now this doesn't automatically mean the films are better, it may be a commentary on the evolution of superhero stories; Nolans films had more heroic characters than Burton's. It probably started with the Adam West Batman series in which the quip was that every city occupied by a super hero has useless citizens and police officers.

I saw the deleted scenes for the second film for the first time. They featured more of the deceased characters as well as Richard Parker showing up alive. Also flash thompson was in a deleted scene at his high school graduation, no longer a bully but rather an obnoxious nice guy on good terms with Peter and Gwen preparing to leave for the army; I definitely got the impression they were setting him up to become venom.

It's also easy to tell that Harry was setting up the sinister six; we all know Rhino appears, the vulture wings and doc ock tentacles are also shown so they would have been 4 of the six, possibly electro and Lizard forming the team.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 20 Dec  2014, 15:50This series fixed practically everything people hated about the previous series;

-no constant narrating
-no monologues from Aunt May
-Peter Parker not a super nerd
-no crying
-the soap opera with Mary Jane replaced by an interesting dynamic
-the damsel in distress clichee replaced with a heroic love interest
-despite being under developed, the villains are less cartoony

That is basically almost all the opposite of true, except for the narrating which only happened a couple times in the first movie and third and the second has only one instance of it, and the supernerd. Peter cried more in the first movie than he did in any of the Raimi ones. The TASM romance were just soap opera-ish. The villains are mostly more cartoony than the Raimi ones. Gwen's entire purpose was to be a damsel in distress cliche. The heroism is just used to make it seem less sexist, when it makes more. There are also still monologues, just more out of emotional ranting, than calm lesson teaching.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 19 May  2014, 09:50That puts Dunst/MJ to shame.

Why? What's shameful about not being able to save a superhero as a regular human?

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Looks like Andrew Garfield and Sally Field didn't enjoy their experience on working on the Amazing Spider-Man films. Garfield described working on them as "being stuck in a creative prison", and Field only accepted the Aunt May role as a favour for the late producer Laura Ziskin. Shame, because I thought they were quite good for their roles.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/09/01/andrew-garfield-spider-man-prison-hated-money-interview/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/03/16/sally-field-hates-spiderman-aunt-may-role-reason/

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Mar  2016, 22:31
Looks like Andrew Garfield and Sally Field didn't enjoy their experience on working on the Amazing Spider-Man films. Garfield described working on them as "being stuck in a creative prison", and Field only accepted the Aunt May role as a favour for the late producer Laura Ziskin. Shame, because I thought they were quite good for their roles.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/09/01/andrew-garfield-spider-man-prison-hated-money-interview/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/03/16/sally-field-hates-spiderman-aunt-may-role-reason/

This type of hypocrisy annoys me.  I realise it's career-suicide to bad-mouth a production whilst you're still signed to it, but I hate all the fake bonhomie and cheerleading for a movie whilst it's on release, only to discover later on that the cast/crew didn't enjoy the experience (or more likely they resent the fact that the film didn't boost their careers the way it was supposed to).

That said, I particularly liked Sally Field as Aunt May so it's sad to read that she wouldn't have made a CBM had it not been for a personal obligation to a friend.

Yeah, that's disappointing to hear. I was dead set against the Webb reboot, until TASM2 came around, which I liked quite a bit. But now I'm back to being the jaded Spider-Fan again. I'm sure the passion will come back, but for now, Superman has taken my number two spot after Batman.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Mar  2016, 01:01
Yeah, that's disappointing to hear. I was dead set against the Webb reboot, until TASM2 came around, which I liked quite a bit. But now I'm back to being the jaded Spider-Fan again. I'm sure the passion will come back, but for now, Superman has taken my number two spot after Batman.

That's understandable.  Even if one is a Spidey-fan, as I, and presumably you, are, fatigue does tend to set in considering we're getting two reboots, in the space of about four/five years, to a franchise that began in 2002!

Exactly. And Cavill represents long term stability.

Hey, I just found this deleted scene where Richard Parker was revealed to be alive all along! He explains that he faked his death to protect Peter from Osborne. I don't know what to makes sure of this had this scene remained in the final cut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpC0z2P1uaY

I'm all for striking out and doing your own thing, but that deleted scene would've been awful.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Mar  2016, 07:25
Exactly. And Cavill represents long term stability.

Agreed.  I have some concerns about the DC Extended Universe, but absolutely none of them relate to Cavill, the best Superman since Christopher Reeve IMHO (and just to be clear, I consider Reeve's Superman to be the high benchmark in terms of comic-book movie performances).  Whatever happens to the DCEU I hope, and am pretty certain, that Cavill's Superman is in it for the long haul.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Mar  2016, 08:40
I'm all for striking out and doing your own thing, but that deleted scene would've been awful.

One scene I wish they had kept in the first ASM is one where Dr Curt Connors meets his son after pre-school.  I always like a sense that the villains in these movies have a family life beyond diabolical plotting.  It humanises the villains and thus makes them more compelling.  It's one of the elements Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films did particularly well with Norman Osborn, Dr. Otto Octavius and Flint Marko (if not, alas, Eddie Brock).

Even if the TASM films had their issues, I enjoyed them and I would've liked to see a third film. I liked Garfield and Field in the roles, and Emma Stone as Gwen. And I'm also one of the people who enjoyed TASM2.

I've heard of that deleted scene before, and I don't know if it would've helped the movie to see Richard Parker coming back after Gwen's death just like that. And there won't be a third film in this continuity either way.

I just hope that the Marvel universe Spidey won't get "rebooted" too somehow. And some fans already complained about him being a teenager in highschool again...

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 20 Mar  2016, 11:23
Even if the TASM films had their issues, I enjoyed them and I would've liked to see a third film. I liked Garfield and Field in the roles, and Emma Stone as Gwen. And I'm also one of the people who enjoyed TASM2.

I've heard of that deleted scene before, and I don't know if it would've helped the movie to see Richard Parker coming back after Gwen's death just like that. And there won't be a third film in this continuity either way.

I just hope that the Marvel universe Spidey won't get "rebooted" too somehow. And some fans already complained about him being a teenager in highschool again...

The MCU has a fantastic record.  I doubt it will need to be rebooted any time soon.

And Peter Parker tends to work best in a high school setting.  I hope we get more than one movie in which he's still a teen.

The movie could be successful, we don't know much about the plot or characters appearing yet. There are just rumors floating around.

The high school setting is a good place to start, but the story ought to be something fresh, I think what's confirmed so far is that they will not be showing the origin of Spider-Man again on film. This is a good move, I think. The audience is no doubt familiar with it by now.

The hard part about keeping Spidey in high school for too long is that the actor will age. The new actor is 20 so we probably have about 5 years before he will be too old to be able to convincingly portray a teenager.

I liked the ASM movies better. It's too bad they got cut short, I felt they kept a lot in the vault for the sequels which never came. I really enjoyed how they gave the two main villains their own themes and used science to beat both. I felt they showed Spider-man using his intelligence more in these ones than the Maguire ones; we know Peter Parker is a science buff but he actually used it as spider-man in these ones.

Oh well I guess it's all for the best, for those who haven't read the civil war comics, spider-man plays a critical role so I'm glad he's with the MCU as I feel he would have been sorely missed had they gone ahead without him.