Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Samurai8472, Feb 26, 2013.
He looks like OUaT's Rumplestiltskin (minus the glittery skin) and the Goblin King from Labyrinth.
That's probably why they are doing spin-offs like The Sinister Six and Venom. They probably realize they can't keep on making Spider-Man movies forever and still keep the same kind of appeal the Raimi movies had. I'm sure by the time The Amazing Spider-Man 3 comes out there'll be some kind of franchise fatigue (although the X-Men movies are still going strong and Days of Future Past will technically be the seventh X-Men movie... although that franchise benefits from multiple characters with a wide variety of powers).
I hope by the time The Amazing Spider-Man 4 rolls around that they at least do a soft reboot. I'm surprised these movies aren't using the famous Spidey sub-titles like Spectacular, Superior, Ultimate, etc. unless they are saving those for future incarnations. We've seen the origin story twice now. It would be great if we just saw a different Spider-Man with the origin story behind us. Maybe even call it The Spectactular Spider-Man or something along those lines. Andrew Garfield has hinted he might not want to play the character beyond The Amazing Spider-Man 3, so I think a recast is inevitable. I still think you can do a soft reboot - hire different actors, maybe include the origin story in bits with the opening title sequence (a la The Incredible Hulk) and just move forward from there.
I'm sure Sony would be adamant to make more Spider-Man movies beyond the Webb/Garfield series but as mentioned above I am curious to see how well The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does. The last movie made money, but it wasn't an explosive hit. Sinister Six and Venom feel somewhat risky (has there ever been a movie with the villains of a franchise but not the main hero?) so I would also be curious to see how well those movies do before hedging any bets on any future Spidey installments.
I hope they keep the same continuity too, and if Garfield does give up the part I'd prefer a recast rather than to see them start a new adaptation again.
I'd quite like them one day to go into full on horror mode and have the mutation storyline where he starts to turn into a spider, although I very much doubt that's ever going to happen. The good thing about Spidey though is that he has so many good villains that TPTB don't have to worry about coming up with compelling adversaries.
One of my problems with the stills I've been seeing and doing Spider-man in general is that he seems to swinging from great heights, that I wonder what buildings or structures his webs attach to. Unless there's an Empire State Building every four blocks.
Well originally I would have thought a great way to reinvigorate the franchise was by making it more grounded and realistic, like they talked about doing for the first movie. But in the end not a whole lot of that really came through, and instead we just got a typical, generic superhero origin story.
And this new movie appears to have abandoned that approach completely. It basically looks about as bright, colorful, and comic booky as any of the Raimi films.
Actually the main issue I usually have is with how freakin fast he swings at times, especially when swooping in to save somebody. Even with superpowers, there's only so fast somebody would be able to swing on an incredibly long web like that.
I believe Stan Lee was known to evoke passing helicopters when he was asked that question (specifically pertaining to a cover or interior image where Spidey was swinging past the Empire State Building itself with his web clearly attached to something much higher up). If nothing else, it's true to the source material.
I also seem to recall that the digital Manhattan in the Raimi movies was based on the real one but had a lot more very tall buildings added, because that's the optimal environment for Spider-Man.
Uggh, not a fan of that GG look. I wasn't necessarily expecting them to go for the full comic book look for Green Goblin, but I was at least hoping for something more than just bad skin and teeth, and messed up hair. I am still looking forward to this though, based off of my enjoyment of the first one, and the trailers.
Aaaaaand: first review. Mildly spoilerish. http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/film-review-the-amazing-spider-man-2-1201154134/
Edited to include a second review: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/09/amazing-spiderman-2-review?CMP=twt_gu
Clip from the MTV Movie Awards
The more I see, the more I get the same feeling as with the first one... it is going to get saved by the chemistry between Andrew & Emma.
That's basically what a lot of the reviews have said so far: the movie is decent but the chemistry between Garfield & Stone elevates it above average or worse. Which is what I suspected. The first one was decent, but Garfield & Stone saved that movie with their chemistry alone.
I've seen the movie and it's great!
It's out here today, I'm seeing it this evening.
"The 'Batman and Robin' of the Spider-Man franchise."
Oh, they switched composers to Hans Zimmer? Disappointing. I've never been crazy about James Horner's work, but I liked his Spidey theme in the last movie. And while Zimmer has occasionally done interesting work (e.g. in the Sherlock Holmes and Kung Fu Panda franchises, and The Critic way back when), I find his usual superhero/action scoring to be relentlessly bland, just a bunch of loud blaring tones with no melody. (He came up with a reasonably good Superman theme for Man of Steel but only used it for about 30 seconds in the end titles. I heard it more in the burger commercials than in the movie itself.)
Maybe it's just me but I think it would have been fun had they named the sequel Spectacular Spider-Man, and the next one Web Of Spider-Man.
I felt that way with the Raimi/McGuire series but that didn't happen then.
Amazing Spiderman ('04)
Spectacular Spiderman ('07)
It seems now though that once the Webb/Garfield era is over and SONY again reboots it the next installment will use Spectacular most likely to set it apart from the others. Provided they don't run it into the ground enough audiences get apathy towards Spidey.
Just seen it. It's an incredibly poor script, badly structured, flat jokes and with laughable character arcs, as well as
Spoiler: the end
the fact that, even if you were a complete Spidey virgin, Gwen's death is sign-posted in such a heavy-handed manner throughout that you end up thinking that there's going to be a twist and she's not going to die after all.
That said, aside from a brief stretch in the middle I was never bored, but it does feel a complete hodge-podge assembled from three or four different movies. Both Electro and the Green Goblin worked for me, but were wasted, the latter especially so, and Garfield and Stone are charming, apart from a couple of times where the slush is layered so thickly you'll be reaching for your sick bucket.
In a world that has Captain America: The Winter Soldier, though, this isn't good enough any more.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. I loved the visuals and the villains, liked their motivations. Some things were a bit rushed so there wasn't much time to settle. I don't think these films are as good at putting across a clear theme as the Raimi movies were, and sometimes it seems they're going for flash over substance. I do enjoy the dynamism and energy that comes with that though.
I love Spidey as a character, but I have no desire to see this. I mean, the marketing is filled with bright colors and CGI and just so overdone with stupid name-drops and showiness beyond measure. Sony is telling us: "you need to see this. You need to. No, really, you need to see it.
I'm sorry, but I have no desire to hand over money that expects me to take a villain seriously whose story is that he shoots electricity (ooohhh kewl) because he was in a vat with electric eels and something has gone wrong!
My seven year old nephew can think of better villains!
I'm voting with my wallet.
Separate names with a comma.