Spoilers Spider-man 3(take 2) Anticipation thread

Just finished rewatching The Amazing Spider-Man 2...and wow. That was worse than I remembered. There were some good ideas in there but all of it was poorly executed. And that's before you even get to whatever the fuck they were trying to do with Harry.

The only good thing about the film was the superb chemistry between Garfield and Stone.

Yeah, there's that, too. Not the usual people doing the interviews, unfortunately.

 

In other Spidey news, HISHE finally made an episode for Spider-Man that came out today:

 

Back when they came out, I loved the Raimi Spider-Man movies, but I haven't watched them in ages, and now I'm curious how they'd compare to the MCU movies.

 

I rewatched the first Raimi Spider-Man today, without Nostalgia glasses on.

It didn’t really hold up.
It‘s all about MJ as Peter‘s wish fulfillment prop.
Despite her role in later movies, here she only exists for him to pine after until he gets to save her not once but twice. She then just kisses him immediately. Except for her he is a total stranger hiding under a mask. She has not exchanged more than two sentences with him as far as she knows.
Only to become the damsel in distress a third time.
Somehow she then declares her love for Peter at the end, despite having the hots for Spider-Man earlier who even at this point are two entirely different people to her, after just coming out of two bad relationships, one with Peter‘s best friend.
Very confusing all.

Green Goblin proves himself to be extremely stupid.
He actually achieves his evil scheme, he wins, the second he vaporizes the Oscorp chairmen with the instantly lethal pumpkin bombs that come totally out of nowhere and are never seen again.

After that, he doesn’t have a plan anymore.
All he cares about is either have Spidey join him for… something, or kill him.
He has no other motivation anymore.

Looking forward to SM2, pretty sure that one keeps it together a little bit better.

 

So, I am pretty much resigning to the fact that avoidance of spoilers is 100% impossible.
What does it take for Youtube and other social media to give us anti-spoiler filters which we can set to whatever tags we want to not see thumbnails and video titles and the like that blurt out every little thing?

 

What it would take would be for more people to refuse to use Youtube, etc, at all while they're avoiding spoilers than there are people who actively hunt down every spoiler they can find on the same sites.

 

Not that I think the original Spider-Man is an amazing film, but I will disagree with a small point. I don't think the Green Goblin is stupid as he is myopic. His focus is to remove all who would oppose him, from the military contractors, the competitive company, to the Oscorp directors and now to Spider-Man. Spider-Man is still in his way which means he must be removed. Except, getting to him isn't as easy as the previous opponents.

So, while he has a plan, it is an extremely singular focus plan which makes his ability to adapt quite limited. Which can definitely be read as stupid.

 

Why would they do that?

 

Well I thought that was pretty spectacular, albeit a spectacular all you can eat buffet of empty calories.


But sometimes a mixed grill is just why you want.


The first act is brilliant, very reminiscent of Back in Black and One More Day, in a good way. Showing Peter’s life completely falling apart as only Peter’s life can. All leading very logically and emotionally to the ask of Strange for help.


We all have bad days and we’ve all had days at work where everyone is having a bad day at the same time. This is that film for superheroes.

Spoiler

I love that Strange calls back to what Peter should have done after it’s all gone wrong. I mean the film is at least refreshingly honest in hold lampshades up against its plot holes and flaws.


As soon as May said that line me and my son turned to each other and said “She’s dead”


I really thought for a minute they’d reference Oc’s affection for May with these two.


The cheers that rang out for Cox and Garfield and Maguire were incredible. I love it when that happens in a cinema. Normally UK audiences are too reserved for such things, so I really love it when that happens.


I didn’t understand why Sandman went along with Electro after he was being so reasonable in the 20 minutes leading up to that.


The Lab scene I think made it for me. Tobey didn’t really get loads to do and I felt that Tom and Andrew really ruled the three Spideys scene.


When the sky started cracking at the end, I really thought we were going to get a quick 3 minute flurry of a shed load of extra dimensional villains and a reciprocal flurry of Spideys (I mean how funny would it have been to have had Cameron’s Spider-Leo and Arnie’s Oc as a quick cameo?). So I was a little let down that that didn’t happen (but it was a bit of an unrealistic hope).


I really hope that the three Spideys each get a cameo in Across the Spider-Verse.

So, yeah, not one to over think but just enjoy stuffing your face with it.


Both my kids said it was their film of the year (my son said it’s a tie between this and Ghostbusters Afterlife, so you’ve made my boy very happy, Sony).

 

I especially like where it left Peter

Spoiler

Penniless, destitute, alone. As only the Parker luck would land him.

No more “next Iron Man” or bottomless wallet and endless mentors. Bottom of the barrel studio apartment in the city with a police scanner and a home made costume.

Really sets up another trilogy, should Holland re-sign

 

A lot of the best comics also are pretty un-subtle in both the drama and humor.

I think Peter has generally been portrayed as both self-absorbed and altruistic and I like that unusual combination.

The "Power of the sun in the palm of my hand" bit was a small really Big moment that I think was pulled off.

LOL. I did think Maguire was by far both most likeable and most believable in 2.

I think they're pretty timeless (though some of the humor in 1 and 3 is cringey) at least 2 still feels innovative and daring for now.

 

You and I must've watched two very different films.

But I've long accepted the fact that I'm in the minority regarding the Maguire films, or at least the second one at this point. I'm just glad I'm not as alone as I thought I was thanks to people like Allyn.

I watched Homecoming and Far From Home the last two days and they're both still great films with only a few missteps (the biggest one really was how easily Peter trusted Mysterio). Next up, Into the Spider-Verse...and then No Way Home on Saturday!

 

Andrew Garfield's Amazing Spider-Man duology.

As a whole, I liked these more than the Raimi films as a whole. I was more engaged by the films, the actors, the cinematography and direction. Andrew Garfield is a compelling performer who demands you watch him and everyone and everything around him. I liked his take on Peter Parker, a broken young man who's bitter about being abandoned by his parents as a child and haunted by the deaths of Uncle Ben and Captain Stacy, who loses himself in the Spider-Man persona to become someone else without all of his baggage. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was a fascinating character in her own right, and, even though it's a bit CW-esque, I liked how Peter and Gwen became a bit of a team; Peter's a genius (which is something the Raimi trilogy kept telling us but never bothered to actually show), and Gwen's just a hair smarter and gives him a second set of eyes. There are also nice supporting turns by Sally Field, Denis Leary, and Martin Sheen.

The problem with these films, though, is in the story being told and the premise that underlies that story, namely that Peter Parker is (unintentionally) at the center of a power struggle over the secret research his father was engaged in when he was a child. That's a fascinating idea. It riffs off the old comics chestnut, "Everything you thought you knew is wrong!" I bought it into completely. But I'm not sure it's a Spider-Man story. Heck, the second half of ASM is a loose adaptation of Batman Year One! I could see the story working better as a television series -- heck, there's enough cut footage from both films that Marc Webb could do a Zack Snyder's Justice League with the material -- than as a biennial blockbuster film series.

(A related problem is Sony's desire to build a whole cinematic universe around this, which comes close to overwhelming the second film, though I think the Orci/Kurtzman script with its trademark multiple climaxes is a bigger issue there. See also, Star Trek Into Darkness which, like ASM2, ends... and then keeps going.)

The Lizard's scheme in the first film -- "I've turned myself into a monster, so I'm going to turn all of Manhattan into monsters, too!" -- was dumb. And the absence of Rhys Ifans as Connors in Richard Parker's videos in the second film was noticeable, given the lengths the first film went to establish that Connors and Parker had been colleagues. (I thought it was a nice touch that Parker, not Connors, was the brains of the operation; Parker got the cross-species transfer to work, but Connors wasn't smart enough to recreate the work.)

The second film... I'm going to be a bit forgiving of Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborn as his performance reminded me of my best friend, who died fifteen years ago of a brian aneurysm. I wish the film hadn't crammed his introduction, backstory, and transformation into the Goblin into two hours, yet I understand why it was there. (The script is pretty mechanical in how it goes about things.) I wish the film had used the time instead on Max/Electro, who goes from an interesting figure in the first hour of the film to nothing more than muscle/lackey in the last half. There's so much going on in this film that nothing has time to breathe. It worked for me, it paid things off that it set up earlier in the film (Gwen's speech, the Russian terrorists, the little boy with the handmade windmill, which reminded me of the little girl with the glasses in V for Vendetta), but I can understand why it didn't for most people. Who really wants to see Spider-Man in a conspiracy/business thriller where a major plotline is about who controls Oscorp and its secret facility?

Overall, I feel these films tried to give Peter Parker psychological depth that the Raimi films did not, though perhaps they went too far in the direction of making Peter dark and embittered. I think it's a valid take on the character, though, more interesting than simply continuing Tobey Maguire's characterization (which is what I thought at the time Sony should have done, just recast like a James Bond film and continue), and I would have been interested to see what Garfield would have done with the role in a subsequent film.

I liked these films. I found a genuine emotional core in them, and they were effective for me in that regard. I know that opinion on the Garfield duology is out of the mainstream. And that's okay.

What is "innovative and daring" about Spider-Man 2?

When Keith DeCandido reviewed Spider-Man 2 for tor.com three years ago, his review boils down to, basically, "This isn't a good film, and I don't know why it's so revered."

 

While I would not ask for it I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am more forgiving of this film, even more so than ASM 1. I too feel that DeHaan's story is one that could use a whole film but understand the movement.

ASM 2 suffers from having a lot to unpack and so can't explore the depth it shows is there. Except, right at the end. The ending of this film is my favorite of the Spiderman movies.

 

LOL, not well-developed but passable story/conflict. I thought Garfield Spider-Man also having organic webbing would have made more sense and strengthened the theme of human-animal mutants (mutates) fighting.

Particularly memorable,

Rosie dying as she died, her dying was kind of inevitable but deaths, let alone brutal deaths, are still rare both before and after the film.

Peter going to a doctor/psychologist and taking seriously what he said, directly rejecting Uncle Ben asking him to continue being Spider-Man, also later pretty much revealing his identity and actions to Aunt May without directly revealing it.

Jameson reluctantly admitting that Spider-Man actually was a hero that he needs and then when he's back seamlessly reverting to hating and bashing him.

Octopus going from humor with remembering Peter was called "Brilliant but lazy" to realizing he had become monstrous and determining he will not die a monster, saving the city (from his plot) and still dying.

Mary Jane leaving her fiance at the altar, controversial but effective.

And not about story or characters but I thought the effects in the vertical building side fight were and still are breathtaking.

Interesting he thought there were too many action scenes, I thought a semi-common complaint from people who didn't particularly like the film was that there was too little action (while those who loved it particularly liked the amount and type of action).

 

Allyn, good to see your thoughts continue to align with my own, this time regarding the Webb films. I agree almost entirely with everything you said.

 

Just finished Amazing Spider-Man 1 on my rewatch through all the films.

To my surprise I enjoyed it a lot more than the Raimi films.
TAS has a raw quality to Peter’s story, that the earlier ones are lacking somehow which resonats a lot more with me atm.
Where Raimi basically told a fairy tale about a shining hero, evil villains and a princess in need of rescue (repeatedly), TAS is a character story about loss and grief and I may even go so far as to say depression.
Not your typical superhero depiction for sure.
Spider-Man becomes a coping mechanism for Peter, quite similarly to DC’s Batman actually.
It’s only at the very end that he embraces his responsibility and acts completely selfless and finally becomes the Amazing Spider-Man.

Also, Emma Stone is hitting it out of the park as Gwen Stacy. The writing helps, of course, as she is a fully fledged character and not just Princess Peach in need of rescue all the time.
In fact, Peter only gets her out of harms way once after she saved him!
She provides him with the means to save the day in the end.
She figures out instantly why he rejects her after her father’s sacrifice and she is not blaming him one bit.
it’s this wonderful character development that makes the end of the second film hit so much harder.

I am as of yet unspoiled if I will see this Spider-Man again in a few days, but I sincerely hope so.

And please don’t give me any indication in either direction of his possible return.

 

The movie was good, but I don't the score, even the Andrew Garfield features, were as good and memorable as Danny Elfman and Christopher Young's soundtrack.

 

Apart from Electro’s theme you mean.

 

I agree with you on that. The defining characteristic of Peter Parker through the late sixties and seventies was his depression and blaming himself for everything that happened. He was a morose chracter, a loner, who always felt like a pretender when it came to being a super-hero.