But it's a comic book movie. Some silliness is always present, what matters is in how they pull it off. That's the difference between silly and cool.
"Amazing Spider-man 2" discussion
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
But it's a comic book movie. Some silliness is always present, what matters is in how they pull it off. That's the difference between silly and cool.
And we're talking about a guy that gained the power to lift cars over his head and sense approaching danger by being bitten by a radioactive spider. What, really, is the difference in credibility?
That origin is from the SSM cartoon, which I believe is also where the idea of Gwen working for Connors comes from.
Well, the difference is that Spider-Man is a cultural staple... as is Batman. But they can still come up with engaging stories that are not so pathetically asinine.
I'll admit I'm a G.I. Joe fan and Cobra has become more and more absurd! Sure, but there are limits.. especially the way Sony has been so in your face, that you HAVE to see this film, when it's villain is so stupid, and all Sony has to advertise it is a bunch of bright colors and CGI.
I don't know.. I just feel that Spider- Man is better than this. They should have gone all stupid and absurd, or they should have given him a real villain to contend with. They are playing the middle.
I mean, come on, the villain was in a vat with electric eels to gain the power to shoot electricity. t's like they are not even trying anymore
I'll admit I'm a G.I. Joe fan and Cobra has become more and more absurd! Sure, but there are limits.. especially the way Sony has been so in your face, that you HAVE to see this film, when it's villain is so stupid, and all Sony has to advertise it is a bunch of bright colors and CGI.
I don't know.. I just feel that Spider- Man is better than this. They should have gone all stupid and absurd, or they should have given him a real villain to contend with. They are playing the middle.
I mean, come on, the villain was in a vat with electric eels to gain the power to shoot electricity. t's like they are not even trying anymore
I genuinely don't understand why you find electric eels in particular so problematical. Electric eels' ability to generate electricity is a truly remarkable evolutionary adaptation -- a real-life superpower, effectively. It's unsurprising that a company like the film's Oscorp, which is heavily involved in transgenic research, would be interested in the potential of electric-eel genetics. I would speculate, not having seen the film yet, that the "vat" might be filled not merely with water, but with some kind of mutagenic medium, or perhaps is undergoing some kind of process designed to extract the eels' electrocytes in some way, or whatever.
Of course it's fantasy, but there are many superhero and supervillain origins far more implausible or simplistic -- including Electro's origin in the comics. How can you get lazier than "struck by lightning" as a source of superpowers? At least the Flash's origin involved a bunch of chemicals. Max Dillon was just working on power lines. Why are you not condemning that for its laziness?
Of course it's fantasy, but there are many superhero and supervillain origins far more implausible or simplistic -- including Electro's origin in the comics. How can you get lazier than "struck by lightning" as a source of superpowers? At least the Flash's origin involved a bunch of chemicals. Max Dillon was just working on power lines. Why are you not condemning that for its laziness?
There's no mention of it being anything other than water, but Max does drag some cables into the water when he falls*, so it's probably supposed to be an electric eel/straight-up electricity combo that creates him. Maybe.
*Although I'm not sure how he manages it, considering where they were and where he ends up.
Whether it's water or something else, it's pretty asinine. I understand that all comic book movies have a certain inherent silliness to them, that they have to pick a tone that works for them in that regard. I thought G.I Joe Retaliation found that tone and stuck to it.
But this new Spider-Man film is supposed to add drama and dimension the Spider-Man character. It's supposed to have that one vent from the comics that changes his life. It's supposed to set up numerous filmss, including the Sinuster Six, to build a Cinmeatic Universe. But this premise of a man who gains "kewl electrical powers from a vat of electric eels" doesn't seem far removed from the witless "man falls into chamber with sand and become Sandman" or m"man is injected with syrum and something goes wrong" like the first Green Goblin. All of these stupid villain origin stories might be similar in their silliness to Spidey's but that doesn't mean that they work, At all. Spidey's doesn't too but he's an established character from the comics and once you accept his origin and move him into films, his adversaries, and the sensibilities of storytelling, must move up a notch. Doc Oc also had a zany story but it was given a lot of heft by the actor. But I'm sorry I just don't see that happening here.. the electric eels sounds stupid. It would sound stupid even if I was a 12 year old Spidey fan. The game has changed for comic book films I think, and Electro's origin feels so much like a Bat and Robin type thing
But this new Spider-Man film is supposed to add drama and dimension the Spider-Man character. It's supposed to have that one vent from the comics that changes his life. It's supposed to set up numerous filmss, including the Sinuster Six, to build a Cinmeatic Universe. But this premise of a man who gains "kewl electrical powers from a vat of electric eels" doesn't seem far removed from the witless "man falls into chamber with sand and become Sandman" or m"man is injected with syrum and something goes wrong" like the first Green Goblin. All of these stupid villain origin stories might be similar in their silliness to Spidey's but that doesn't mean that they work, At all. Spidey's doesn't too but he's an established character from the comics and once you accept his origin and move him into films, his adversaries, and the sensibilities of storytelling, must move up a notch. Doc Oc also had a zany story but it was given a lot of heft by the actor. But I'm sorry I just don't see that happening here.. the electric eels sounds stupid. It would sound stupid even if I was a 12 year old Spidey fan. The game has changed for comic book films I think, and Electro's origin feels so much like a Bat and Robin type thing
You ain't gonna dig the origin of this new Goblin. 
"Syrum?" Is that, like, the serum that mutated Mrs. Butterworth?
It's only April and dealing with the spelling/grammar gods is already old.
Then don't make any typos.
It's easy to see why some consider it silly though.
Peter Parker was bitten by a genetically engineered spider, and gained strength and wall-crawling abilities. It rewrote his DNA to enhance his abilities.
Max Dillon was bitten by electric eels and on top of the ability to absorb and create electricity, (so far so good) he is also able to take solid form or travel as pure energy, along with his clothes.
Comic Electro was (at least originally, he has been upgraded in recent years) just a guy who became a living capacitor by being struck by lightning. From Marvel wiki:
Peter Parker was bitten by a genetically engineered spider, and gained strength and wall-crawling abilities. It rewrote his DNA to enhance his abilities.
Max Dillon was bitten by electric eels and on top of the ability to absorb and create electricity, (so far so good) he is also able to take solid form or travel as pure energy, along with his clothes.
Comic Electro was (at least originally, he has been upgraded in recent years) just a guy who became a living capacitor by being struck by lightning. From Marvel wiki:
The idea of a character turning into electricity has always been stupid, regardless of the alleged origin of the power. It's right up there with Sandman's power to turn into sand, along with his clothes. See also Hydro-Man, the Living Laser, Vapor, Dust, etc.
Silly powers and silly origins are just part of comics. What made the Marvel Universe work is that it combined those silly elements with believable characterization and human drama. After all, the powers are usually just allegories for aspects of the characters and their conflicts. So it's the human side of the story that matters. If that works, then the movie will work regardless of the implausibility of the fantasy elements.
Silly powers and silly origins are just part of comics. What made the Marvel Universe work is that it combined those silly elements with believable characterization and human drama. After all, the powers are usually just allegories for aspects of the characters and their conflicts. So it's the human side of the story that matters. If that works, then the movie will work regardless of the implausibility of the fantasy elements.
"Syrum?" Is that, like, the serum that mutated Mrs. Butterworth?
Precisely! It greatly enhanced her ability to give her enemies diabetes.
Overall it was a fun movie. I thought the pace was a bit slow and they need to be careful to keep the villains on the right side of camp (i.e. less camp than Batman & Robin). Captain America 2 did a way better job of pacing but I like the fact that they have a clearer plot arc involved this time around culminating it seems in the Sinister Six? The previous franchise would have benefited from a clearer arc with Venom being the fourth movie and Sinister Six the fifth.
I love, love, love Emma Stone's Gwen and nice cameo by Felicia (fingers crossed). However, not enough Spidey humour, Aunt May was a believable character but she just feels too out of her depth all the time, and I felt a pang of disappointment that Norman Osborn wasn't involved more. As far as villain origins go, sitting through a laborious slog involving Peter's parents is bad enough. Villains with quick and simple origins should allow us more meat on the bones.
I love, love, love Emma Stone's Gwen and nice cameo by Felicia (fingers crossed). However, not enough Spidey humour, Aunt May was a believable character but she just feels too out of her depth all the time, and I felt a pang of disappointment that Norman Osborn wasn't involved more. As far as villain origins go, sitting through a laborious slog involving Peter's parents is bad enough. Villains with quick and simple origins should allow us more meat on the bones.
Well, this version of Electro was more than the D-List buffoon he usually is in the comics so I don't what the complaints are for this version. Sure, he's kind of a psycho stalker but that's still more interesting than a random buffoon.
As for Venom, you actually CAN do the entire Symbiote story in ONE movie, but it requires some random villains for Spidey to fight and for there to be a bit of build-up with Eddie Brock.
Hell, the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon just eliminated Brock entirely (which makes sense) and turned Harry into Venom instead.
I think that might work for this version as well.
As for Venom, you actually CAN do the entire Symbiote story in ONE movie, but it requires some random villains for Spidey to fight and for there to be a bit of build-up with Eddie Brock.
Hell, the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon just eliminated Brock entirely (which makes sense) and turned Harry into Venom instead.
I think that might work for this version as well.
I enjoyed this. I went in with low expectations on the back of middling reviews and a sense of "how can it top Captain America: TWS?" But while not perfect, it was fun. Garfield is even better in this one than the previous one and, for me anyway, wipes away memories of Toby Maguire. Great chemistry with Stone.
Dane DeHaan is great and competes admirably with Willem Dafoe (he definitely gets a better suit). Jamie Foxx does his best with a thinly written role and Paul Giamatti makes the most of his limited screen time. The 3D is pretty decent and the action sequences are very well done. A lot of reviews have suggested that after 5 movies there is limited mileage in seeing Spidey swing through the skies but it still gets me every time.
Better than Raimi's first and third film and its own predecessor but arguably the previous Spider-man with a 2 in its title remains the one to beat.
So is this movie not getting its own designated review thread then?
Dane DeHaan is great and competes admirably with Willem Dafoe (he definitely gets a better suit). Jamie Foxx does his best with a thinly written role and Paul Giamatti makes the most of his limited screen time. The 3D is pretty decent and the action sequences are very well done. A lot of reviews have suggested that after 5 movies there is limited mileage in seeing Spidey swing through the skies but it still gets me every time.
Better than Raimi's first and third film and its own predecessor but arguably the previous Spider-man with a 2 in its title remains the one to beat.
So is this movie not getting its own designated review thread then?
He did that for me last time. The Raimi films basically changed Peter Parker's character to fit Tobey Maguire, so he never really felt like Peter to me. Garfield is actually playing Peter Parker, albeit an edgier Peter than I'm used to.
I've only recently discovered that I'm able to see 3D movies (I'd thought my vision problems in my left eye would preclude it, but they don't), so I've never seen a Spidey movie in 3D. But I saw the ASM2 trailer in 3D when I went to see Desolation of Smaug, and it looked spectacular. I'm really looking forward to seeing the whole movie in 3D.
It hasn't come out in the US yet. I expect it'll get a review thread once it does.
Similar threads
