To be honest, I personally found that they were more focused in vision and more coherent as an actual movie way more than most of the MCU, especially the last 3 leading up to Avengers. Those felt waaaaay more like they were franchise building than telling an actual story. The first Captain america in particular felt more like it was a spin off, with way too many references to Thor and Iron Man that distracted from the over all focus of what the film was. Now I LOVE cross overs to pieces, but what makes cross overs so special and exciting is that YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF HOW THEY ARE CONNECTED! Seriously, by the time we get to Avengers WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY ARE PART OF ONE UNIVERSE! Don't get me wrong, Avengers is still a spectacular treat, but I mean, we have already had "Crossover" elements be established in the previous films. With nick Fury showing up at the end of EVERY movie pretty much it gets derivative and repetitive. I personally cannot look at these movies as their own thing, and it makes my head spin with all of these distracting connections that regardless of whether they relate to the story or not, it just does not seem like I am watching an actual movie.
I know that since they are part of a universe that there needs to be connections, and from a business perspective it makes sense, and I do know that connections like these happened in the comics and in the TV shows, but its gotten to the point where its ridiculous and again, I am personally shocked that people gave ASM2 such crap when the MCU has given us mostly sub parr movies so far. Business notwithstanding, perhaps its the audience who could be wrong. Maybe (most of) the MCU movies are in reality "bad" and people are just going to see them because they are different, and yet when another movie/studio tries to copy its model, people trash it even if it may be more well done. Fact is, the only reason why IM2 perhaps did better than this one was because it came first and because unfortunately, the ASM movies while doing (most) things better than the Raimi films, they got crap because despite living in an age where things are repetitive and to quote a You tube comment made to me, "That's the type of world we live in", people cannot accept the fact that things are repetitive. They play the SAME COD game (or any type of popular video game and or sport for that matter), do the SAME thing pretty much every day of their lives, whether it be the SAME task, or having the SAME conversation EVERY time you run into someone, and yet the cannot accept formulaic style of film making. Yes, they could have been more creative and certainly done some things very differently, but there is only so much one can do. Things need to be recycled or rebooted, thats whats keeping the entertainment (and quite frankly, our own real life) world alive. If it were not for that, then society, like the days of the cavemen, would have died out long ago. You do realize that we just as easily could have stayed savage and caveman like to this very day, it was just one's choice in the past to evolve and change.
Getting back on topic, While the MCU certainly did some things better than the ASM movies, I personally found that they stayed, for the most part on course, instead of being sprinkled with codas and references like the MCU films did. To speak of the criticism about the movie:
- People complained about the "cliff hanger" ending: Well, fyi some of the MCU films had waaay more of a bigger cliff hanger ending with their codas and stingers. Even with or without. The first CA, first Thor, even the second Captain America had more of a "cliff hanger" ending than ASM2 did. ASM2's ending actually tied itself quite well, successfully combining set up with a natural end. I mean, book ends do not ALWAYS work, but in this case it was neat to see the movie ending and beginning with the Rhino battle. Thats actually one of the main things that i liked about ASM2: It actually showed what life is generally like for Spider-Man as opposed to other superhero movies, including the past spider-man movies, being more "plotty" only focusing on plot. The Rhino is a villain for hire, he is supposed to be portrayed as hammy, and he connected well to the overall plot and theme of Oscorp's involvement and set up S6 well for the type of villains that Spidey will be facing, let alone showing the problems that he faces every day of his life. He was also a very deliciously fun character to enjoy by a great character actor As well, you already basically know that spider-man is going to bust him and eventually defeat the S6, right? My younger brother already knows that.
- "Too much on franchise building" - I've already done my piece on that above. Again, going to Rhino, or even Electro's involvement in the film, there is more to a movie than just its story. Not to contradict what I said about MCU, but MCU constantly referencing across the universe is getting rather dull and annoying and to the point where it takes you out of the movie. Electro was a brilliant villain in this movie; he showed what Spider-man could have been like without all of the support. Both are outcast losers who are mistreated by people that get these great powers. Personally, Electro's motivation is one of the best motivations I have ever seen in a villain. Would you not go crazy with people treating you like *beep* all the time when you try so hard and get into situations that you have no control over? He was just as effective or more and had a reason to be in the story as much as Lizard in the first movie. Heck, Lizard's motivations were more poorly executed /not clearly explained than Electro's.
- "Why didn't Peter give Harry his blood" - this is one of those things that makes me question the intelligence of the audience, as in "thinking critically" about it, it was made quite clear, even to those who have not seen the first movie just how dangerous it is to mix the DNA. The mentioned the Lizard events earlier in the film and as Spidey has all of these abilities, he also knows how unpredictable it would be to give to Harry. It shows care and compassion and that he is looking out for his friend. Plus, you saw how, albeit playfully Harry came off as a bit of a jerk to Peter, well peter knows that and since Connors came off as a bit of a jerk and went crazy in the first film, then Peter knows what could happen. He himself is a bit of a jerk but at least he actually tries to do the right thing and can control what he does unlike being able to control these other people.
- "Too much of a focus on romance" - Well if you ask me, Raimi's movies were waaay too focused on romance. Pretty much all Peter Parker ever does in those movies is whine about MJ. At least in this film there is other things going on like the mystery of his parents, etc. For the record, Spidey got more screen time here than in SM3, and at least in Garfield's context, I believe that Peter and Spidey are actually the same person. In any case, he and Gwen share a real passion for each other and she is more than the damsel in distress. She actually has brains and gives him ideas that can help him ,especially in this film
- "Peter parker is a jackass" - Peter Parker in this movie actually acts like a real teenager and in this context is more of an outsider that is still a nerd but who actually tries to fit in per this attitude (in case you have not noticed, most if not all people, especially those in high school, not to mention university, are perhaps bigger *beep* than what Peter is here. Like Uncle Ben said in the first movie, they were stupid and reckless and grew up to be smart and wise. Its a cliched pun, yes but it is indeed true. Garifield's spider-man can crow up to be a great, wise leader of the Avengers that could even help the other heroes see things in themselves to make them bigger people. Its his experiences being reckless that will teach him otherwise. Besides, this is how they explained young Charles grew up to be Patrick Stewart in the X-Men films.
Garfiel'd spider-man, to quote a review that I have read, is made on a similar style to the MCU films: "it is what a Spider-Man movie would look like if Marvel Studios made it, basically — by which I mean the tone, the “living, breathing comic book” quality, the humor and charisma and chemistry of the cast, is all here. It’s what you get when you combine the best elements of Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 — namely, its comic book sensibilities plus quality villain portrayal and imaginative, vibrantly colorful action sequences and lovely cityscapes — with the best elements of Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man — meaning very faithful to the comics, great performances from actors who really encapsulate the characters perfectly, a Spidey who is lifted right off the comic pages in the way he looks and moves and speaks, and an attempt to actually tell a more complex story with honest emotions.
Several other reviews complain that the story was muddled, or that it’s just a CGI-fest, or that there are too many villains, or that it tries to do too much, and to all of that I just have to say, “Wrong!” I really am not sure why anyone would think the story is muddled. It’s a nicely complicated (ahem) web that all ties together in the end, there are a few good twists that add to Spidey’s origin, and it’s all going somewhere in the future, too. There are reasons, in other words, for everything that happens, and even seemingly minor elements end up mattering. Plus there’s some nice character-building going on — even Aunt May has an arc and some changes in her life to deal with. "- http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/05/01/review-amazing-spide r-man-2-is-the-spider-man-weve-been-waiting-for/
In life, we all deserve another chance. I'd like to point out that most thought that the first two Harry Potters, especially number 2, were not that good and then they got a new director for the third which "fixed" it and made it better for a broader audience. Whats to say that the same thing cannot be done here?
The baggage would actually attract a larger audience. After all, one of the main reasons why these ASM movies have not done so well is because of people not liking the reboots and preferring the originals. Well, the same thing is going to happen here. A friend of mine to this day still refuses to watch the ASM movies and likely will never watch another spider-man movie because of her love for the Maguire movies. Another thought it was “too early” for there to be a new spider-man movie. Judging by the financial success of the ASM films, most people seem to feel the same way
The way that the ASM movies were left, with Peter no longer having a love interest, could tie into what Marvel wants to do with the character. University is a time with even greater and challenging responsibilities than in high school, and those things were the elements that were portrayed well with the 2nd Raimi Spider-man, which is considered by many to be the greatest superhero movie of all time. The baggage would benefit the movie, as it would add even more fans and interest that would also increase revenue for Sony and marvel because of the connections
Besides, they could always do like First Class and "soft reboot" the series, where they keep some continuity but retcon some other things. They do not have to keep referencing things, and as pointed out before, they can just say that Spider-man busted the Rhino and then the S6 plan changed which could tie into Hydra or Civil War/Infinity War. Disney actually owns some of the merchandising rights to the ASM movies, so they already own the movie in a way.
For the record, they continued a franchise that was made by another studio when they bought distribution rights to the MCU. Yes, Paramount & Universal were only distributing, while Marvel Studios was actually producing the film, but regardless, one can tell that the Marvel films released after Disney’s purchase seem to have a different overall feel to them. In essence, the studio involved with distributing the movies have as much say or more than the actual production company. On that note, while Marvel was not as directly involved in the Spider-Man films, many key marvel players like head Kevin Fiege (who is also involved as a main producer on Fox’s upcoming Marvel Deadpool movie) were involved with the movies, even after starting the MCU. The opening credits of Spider-Man 3 list a “Marvel Studios” production as opposed to a “Marvel Entertainment” Production which is what is credited for ALL other non MCU Marvel films.
Even if starting over in a new continuity, Andrew can still reprise his role. Sony’s own other top franchise, the James Bond films, have featured Judi Dench reprising her role as M in the rebooted Bond films, when she had previously portrayed the character in the Pierce Bronson films. Her character’s name in the Bronson films was Barbara Mawdsley, whereas in Daniel Craig’s rebooted movies, her name is Olivia Mundsfield. Although just a voice, Peter Cullen reprised his role as optimus prime in most if not all incarnations of Transformers, even those that have different continuity and timeline from the rest.
To anyone reading this, please consider what I have said. For once, please think naturally towards what you think about these movies instead of just going by what the majority says.
Are the ASM movies REALLY that bad?
As well, you already basically know that spider-man is going to bust him and eventually defeat the S6, right? My younger brother already knows that.
To be honest, I personally found that they were more focused in vision and more coherent as an actual movie way more than most of the MCU, especially the last 3 leading up to Avengers. Those felt waaaaay more like they were franchise building than telling an actual story. The first Captain america in particular felt more like it was a spin off, with way too many references to Thor and Iron Man that distracted from the over all focus of what the film was. Now I LOVE cross overs to pieces, but what makes cross overs so special and exciting is that YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF HOW THEY ARE CONNECTED! Seriously, by the time we get to Avengers WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY ARE PART OF ONE UNIVERSE! Don't get me wrong, Avengers is still a spectacular treat, but I mean, we have already had "Crossover" elements be established in the previous films. With nick Fury showing up at the end of EVERY movie pretty much it gets derivative and repetitive. I personally cannot look at these movies as their own thing, and it makes my head spin with all of these distracting connections that regardless of whether they relate to the story or not, it just does not seem like I am watching an actual movie.
I know that since they are part of a universe that there needs to be connections, and from a business perspective it makes sense, and I do know that connections like these happened in the comics and in the TV shows, but its gotten to the point where its ridiculous and again, I am personally shocked that people gave ASM2 such crap when the MCU has given us mostly sub parr movies so far. Business notwithstanding, perhaps its the audience who could be wrong. Maybe (most of) the MCU movies are in reality "bad" and people are just going to see them because they are different, and yet when another movie/studio tries to copy its model, people trash it even if it may be more well done. Fact is, the only reason why IM2 perhaps did better than this one was because it came first and because unfortunately, the ASM movies while doing (most) things better than the Raimi films, they got crap because despite living in an age where things are repetitive and to quote a You tube comment made to me, "That's the type of world we live in", people cannot accept the fact that things are repetitive. They play the SAME COD game (or any type of popular video game and or sport for that matter), do the SAME thing pretty much every day of their lives, whether it be the SAME task, or having the SAME conversation EVERY time you run into someone, and yet the cannot accept formulaic style of film making. Yes, they could have been more creative and certainly done some things very differently, but there is only so much one can do. Things need to be recycled or rebooted, thats whats keeping the entertainment (and quite frankly, our own real life) world alive. If it were not for that, then society, like the days of the cavemen, would have died out long ago. You do realize that we just as easily could have stayed savage and caveman like to this very day, it was just one's choice in the past to evolve and change.
Getting back on topic, While the MCU certainly did some things better than the ASM movies, I personally found that they stayed, for the most part on course, instead of being sprinkled with codas and references like the MCU films did. To speak of the criticism about the movie:
- People complained about the "cliff hanger" ending: Well, fyi some of the MCU films had waaay more of a bigger cliff hanger ending with their codas and stingers. Even with or without. The first CA, first Thor, even the second Captain America had more of a "cliff hanger" ending than ASM2 did. ASM2's ending actually tied itself quite well, successfully combining set up with a natural end. I mean, book ends do not ALWAYS work, but in this case it was neat to see the movie ending and beginning with the Rhino battle. Thats actually one of the main things that i liked about ASM2: It actually showed what life is generally like for Spider-Man as opposed to other superhero movies, including the past spider-man movies, being more "plotty" only focusing on plot. The Rhino is a villain for hire, he is supposed to be portrayed as hammy, and he connected well to the overall plot and theme of Oscorp's involvement and set up S6 well for the type of villains that Spidey will be facing, let alone showing the problems that he faces every day of his life. He was also a very deliciously fun character to enjoy by a great character actor
- "Too much on franchise building" - I've already done my piece on that above. Again, going to Rhino, or even Electro's involvement in the film, there is more to a movie than just its story. Not to contradict what I said about MCU, but MCU constantly referencing across the universe is getting rather dull and annoying and to the point where it takes you out of the movie. Electro was a brilliant villain in this movie; he showed what Spider-man could have been like without all of the support. Both are outcast losers who are mistreated by people that get these great powers. Personally, Electro's motivation is one of the best motivations I have ever seen in a villain. Would you not go crazy with people treating you like *beep* all the time when you try so hard and get into situations that you have no control over? He was just as effective or more and had a reason to be in the story as much as Lizard in the first movie. Heck, Lizard's motivations were more poorly executed /not clearly explained than Electro's.
- "Why didn't Peter give Harry his blood" - this is one of those things that makes me question the intelligence of the audience, as in "thinking critically" about it, it was made quite clear, even to those who have not seen the first movie just how dangerous it is to mix the DNA. The mentioned the Lizard events earlier in the film and as Spidey has all of these abilities, he also knows how unpredictable it would be to give to Harry. It shows care and compassion and that he is looking out for his friend. Plus, you saw how, albeit playfully Harry came off as a bit of a jerk to Peter, well peter knows that and since Connors came off as a bit of a jerk and went crazy in the first film, then Peter knows what could happen. He himself is a bit of a jerk but at least he actually tries to do the right thing and can control what he does unlike being able to control these other people.
- "Too much of a focus on romance" - Well if you ask me, Raimi's movies were waaay too focused on romance. Pretty much all Peter Parker ever does in those movies is whine about MJ. At least in this film there is other things going on like the mystery of his parents, etc. For the record, Spidey got more screen time here than in SM3, and at least in Garfield's context, I believe that Peter and Spidey are actually the same person. In any case, he and Gwen share a real passion for each other and she is more than the damsel in distress. She actually has brains and gives him ideas that can help him ,especially in this film
- "Peter parker is a jackass" - Peter Parker in this movie actually acts like a real teenager and in this context is more of an outsider that is still a nerd but who actually tries to fit in per this attitude (in case you have not noticed, most if not all people, especially those in high school, not to mention university, are perhaps bigger *beep* than what Peter is here. Like Uncle Ben said in the first movie, they were stupid and reckless and grew up to be smart and wise. Its a cliched pun, yes but it is indeed true. Garifield's spider-man can crow up to be a great, wise leader of the Avengers that could even help the other heroes see things in themselves to make them bigger people. Its his experiences being reckless that will teach him otherwise. Besides, this is how they explained young Charles grew up to be Patrick Stewart in the X-Men films.
Garfiel'd spider-man, to quote a review that I have read, is made on a similar style to the MCU films: "it is what a Spider-Man movie would look like if Marvel Studios made it, basically — by which I mean the tone, the “living, breathing comic book” quality, the humor and charisma and chemistry of the cast, is all here. It’s what you get when you combine the best elements of Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 — namely, its comic book sensibilities plus quality villain portrayal and imaginative, vibrantly colorful action sequences and lovely cityscapes — with the best elements of Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man — meaning very faithful to the comics, great performances from actors who really encapsulate the characters perfectly, a Spidey who is lifted right off the comic pages in the way he looks and moves and speaks, and an attempt to actually tell a more complex story with honest emotions.
Several other reviews complain that the story was muddled, or that it’s just a CGI-fest, or that there are too many villains, or that it tries to do too much, and to all of that I just have to say, “Wrong!” I really am not sure why anyone would think the story is muddled. It’s a nicely complicated (ahem) web that all ties together in the end, there are a few good twists that add to Spidey’s origin, and it’s all going somewhere in the future, too. There are reasons, in other words, for everything that happens, and even seemingly minor elements end up mattering. Plus there’s some nice character-building going on — even Aunt May has an arc and some changes in her life to deal with. "- http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/05/01/review-amazing-spide r-man-2-is-the-spider-man-weve-been-waiting-for/
In life, we all deserve another chance. I'd like to point out that most thought that the first two Harry Potters, especially number 2, were not that good and then they got a new director for the third which "fixed" it and made it better for a broader audience. Whats to say that the same thing cannot be done here?
The baggage would actually attract a larger audience. After all, one of the main reasons why these ASM movies have not done so well is because of people not liking the reboots and preferring the originals. Well, the same thing is going to happen here. A friend of mine to this day still refuses to watch the ASM movies and likely will never watch another spider-man movie because of her love for the Maguire movies. Another thought it was “too early” for there to be a new spider-man movie. Judging by the financial success of the ASM films, most people seem to feel the same way
The way that the ASM movies were left, with Peter no longer having a love interest, could tie into what Marvel wants to do with the character. University is a time with even greater and challenging responsibilities than in high school, and those things were the elements that were portrayed well with the 2nd Raimi Spider-man, which is considered by many to be the greatest superhero movie of all time. The baggage would benefit the movie, as it would add even more fans and interest that would also increase revenue for Sony and marvel because of the connections
Besides, they could always do like First Class and "soft reboot" the series, where they keep some continuity but retcon some other things. They do not have to keep referencing things, and as pointed out before, they can just say that Spider-man busted the Rhino and then the S6 plan changed which could tie into Hydra or Civil War/Infinity War. Disney actually owns some of the merchandising rights to the ASM movies, so they already own the movie in a way.
For the record, they continued a franchise that was made by another studio when they bought distribution rights to the MCU. Yes, Paramount & Universal were only distributing, while Marvel Studios was actually producing the film, but regardless, one can tell that the Marvel films released after Disney’s purchase seem to have a different overall feel to them. In essence, the studio involved with distributing the movies have as much say or more than the actual production company. On that note, while Marvel was not as directly involved in the Spider-Man films, many key marvel players like head Kevin Fiege (who is also involved as a main producer on Fox’s upcoming Marvel Deadpool movie) were involved with the movies, even after starting the MCU. The opening credits of Spider-Man 3 list a “Marvel Studios” production as opposed to a “Marvel Entertainment” Production which is what is credited for ALL other non MCU Marvel films.
Even if starting over in a new continuity, Andrew can still reprise his role. Sony’s own other top franchise, the James Bond films, have featured Judi Dench reprising her role as M in the rebooted Bond films, when she had previously portrayed the character in the Pierce Bronson films. Her character’s name in the Bronson films was Barbara Mawdsley, whereas in Daniel Craig’s rebooted movies, her name is Olivia Mundsfield. Although just a voice, Peter Cullen reprised his role as optimus prime in most if not all incarnations of Transformers, even those that have different continuity and timeline from the rest.
To anyone reading this, please consider what I have said. For once, please think naturally towards what you think about these movies instead of just going by what the majority says.
Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day
Edited by Riku21Terr