Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 0:51:51 GMT
I'm in a very small minority that albsolutely loves that movie. I get why people didn't like Spider man 3, but for me the amazing spider man movies just clicked all the right buttons. I thought Garfield's Spidey had the best wit and personality and was very similar to comic spidey, although I thought his peter parker wasn't as strong if that makes any sense. I also enjoyed the story a great deal and the villains were great imo. I will admit Rhino was cheesy af but I think that was intentional lol. So what was it specifically that people hated about this movie? Rewatching it is still great fun imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 0:54:51 GMT
Well, basically, and this is coming from another person who didn't hate the film, it was a very crowded film with a whopping three villains (even if one of them was only a tease for the Sinister Six), and it killed Gwen Stacy, who was a huge part of the reason people were coming to see that new Spider-Man franchise. Plus, Jamie Foxx's Electro left a lot to be desired. I know Foxx is a good actor, but dear lord was he hokey in that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:00:01 GMT
I actually enjoyed his take on Electro, although I can understand why people didn't like it. I also liked the fact that we got to glimpse the Goblin, but without a third movie coming, him being there no longer works sadly. As for Gwen, I liked that she was killed off. I love her character but I think in these types of movies, they tend to shy away from killing major characters. I am a fan of the comics but I didn't for one minute think this movie would actually kill her off and I actually applauded them for having the guts to do it, even if it left me slightly misty eyed lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:03:29 GMT
I thought Amazing Spider man 2 was okay but looking forward to the new Spider Man and the fact that they have finally made Aunt May doable ...I bet Tony Stark taps that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:05:26 GMT
lmao
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 1:06:26 GMT
I'm in a very small minority that albsolutely loves that movie. I get why people didn't like Spider man 3, but for me the amazing spider man movies just clicked all the right buttons. I thought Garfield's Spidey had the best wit and personality and was very similar to comic spidey, although I thought his peter parker wasn't as strong if that makes any sense. I also enjoyed the story a great deal and the villains were great imo. I will admit Rhino was cheesy af but I think that was intentional lol. So what was it specifically that people hated about this movie? Rewatching it is still great fun imo. It's pretty much irrelevant is the big thing. Remember nobody really wanted that series rebooted, Amazing was ok, and then Amazing 2 was immediately followed by everybody knowing the series was done. So really the reboot was just a waste of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:10:00 GMT
I wish we had a conclusion to the story, because as much as I love both Amazing Spideys, you're correct that without a conclusion it was a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 1:24:57 GMT
I wish we had a conclusion to the story, because as much as I love both Amazing Spideys, you're correct that without a conclusion it was a waste of time. It really did just make it completely irrelevant. It would have almost been better if the MCU spidey was they first since Tobey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:27:13 GMT
I'm glad we have those two movies, but the fact it's incomplete will make them a total irrelevance of history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:50:10 GMT
I actually enjoyed his take on Electro, although I can understand why people didn't like it. I also liked the fact that we got to glimpse the Goblin, but without a third movie coming, him being there no longer works sadly. As for Gwen, I liked that she was killed off. I love her character but I think in these types of movies, they tend to shy away from killing major characters. I am a fan of the comics but I didn't for one minute think this movie would actually kill her off and I actually applauded them for having the guts to do it, even if it left me slightly misty eyed lol. Fair enough concerning Electro. I would agree on the issue of killing Gwen if her relationship with Peter wasn't such a huge drawing point for a good chunk of the film's fandom. Not having her was going to hurt that third movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:55:58 GMT
Yeah that's probably true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:59:28 GMT
The best part of the those two movies was the obvious chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield. They were able to carry the two films with the scenes that they shared together. The first one was fine but after a 2nd and 3rd viewing of the second it really wasn't very good. I didn't mind the cheesy Rhino as I kind of enjoyed it and people complaining about the 3 villains in it doesn't really resonate with me either as Rhino wasn't really a big bad in the movie he was just a known character used to show Spidey doing work. I think people complained too much about that as if Rhino is this all important character when he's just a brute and I thought for the purpose of this film worked just fine. Electro was dumb and the fight with him and Spidey near the end with the dub step was stupid. Also I HATED the storyline of Harry Osborn and Peter. That just seemed really shoe horned in there and they used him, a character we had just met and had very little relationship with to kill Gwen Stacy. Now the killing of Gwen I had no issue with it. Outside of Harry being the Goblin to do it I thought it was shot beautifully. I loved the last 10 minutes or so of the film after Gwen died and Peter is crying as I really bought into that emotion. Then Peter listening to her speech I thought was a great touch with him also at her grave and showing the seasons pass giving us time knowing he has stopped being Spider-Man. Then that ending where he shows up to save that kid who was dressed as Spidey, I loved that.
So in the end, Garfield and Stone were great but the rest of the film for me under performed. I think I gave it like a 4/10
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 5, 2017 6:27:58 GMT
I didn't hate it, but it felt aimless, and seemed as if no one had an arc.
and I thought the film starting with peter and gwen breaking up was dumb as hell, because the rest of the film was just watching him pine over her....why?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 7:11:47 GMT
I'm glad we have those two movies, but the fact it's incomplete will make them a total irrelevance of history. Amazing was ok I guess. I was pumped about who the mysterious guy was at the end, and about the mystery with his parents, but IDK, they didn't need to do the origin again and it just felt like the Dr Octopus film again, almost exactly in fact. Plus, they'd been setting up the Lizard in the previous 2 films so with the exception of redoing the origin for no reason, it was basically just Spiderman 4.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 5, 2017 7:33:58 GMT
I didn't hate it, but it felt aimless, and seemed as if no one had an arc. Yeah, it sucked ass. Last Spider-Man movie I'll ever pay to see in a theater. I've no intention of seeing another Spider-Man movie, period, actually.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 5, 2017 8:43:41 GMT
The good thing about the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies was that they were fairly stand-alone, so you could watch them without feeling like "ohhhh...! Sequel! I want a sequel, so I can find out what happens next!" (Yes, I know they set the stage for the Harry Osborne Green Goblin at the end of Spider-Man 2, but it didn't feel much like an indication to me, but rather just a possibility for a sequel, as it wasn't a big cliffhanger). But the Mark Webb movies were obviously trying to set up for sequels, and it made the films outright pointless once the series was cancelled after the second installment. It's disappointing that the filmmakers were claiming that the reboot was going to be more faithful to the comics than the Raimi films. And then when they were finally released, the only thing the Webb movies did more accurately than the Raimi movies was the web shooters. And even though I prefer mechanical web shooters over organic ones (because spiders actually shoot webs from their butts, not their hands, so I would think if Peter did have the abilility to produce web, he would do it more accurately), it's not worth seeing an entire movie just for that one detail.
Spider-man was great. Spider-Man 2 was just as good as (if not better than) the first. Spider-Man 3 was okay. The Amazing Spider-Man was okay, and I was looking forward to sequels. But then The Amazing Spider-Man 2 jumped the shark. Techno Electro. No Norman Osborne Green Goblin. A gross, weirdo Harry Osborne Green Goblin. Rhino that wasn't anything like Rhino. Rhino only for the last few minutes, but hyped in the trailers like he was going to be a major villain. The film was a huge mess. The worst part of the films is that the filmmakers apparently think that audiences can't suspend their disbelief enough to accept certain things. So, rather than having a Rhino suit that actually resembles a Rhino, they resort to a big metal tank costume that doesn't look like Rhino at all. Rather than have villains get their own origins independent of each other, the filmmakers resort to having them all be hired and put together by Oscorp (I guess I could have accepted this if they had made Kingpin be the mastermind, similar to his role in the 1994 animated series, but they failed to do that, and just invented new mastermind characters. And inventing new characters when there are plenty existing ones to choose from just makes me cringe). But audiences CAN suspend their disbeliefs. There have been plenty of films that reveal this.
Heck, I wrote my own scripts for how I would do a Spider-Man movie series, and the friends who read them said they were enter than Webb's movies. If I'm writing better movies than a big Hollywood director is, than that's just sad.
I was hoping the filmmakers would redeem themselves with a third film, but then it got canceled. And, upon thinking about it? I'm glad. This film series was going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 17:49:50 GMT
The good thing about the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies was that they were fairly stand-alone I don't see how that is either a good or a bad thing.
It's bad, if you are just trying to cram in things to promote a new film.
It's good, if like in Civil War you base all of your character motivations on what has come before, and you successfully establish new characters and situations that can be addressed in the future, while focusing on and completing the films main story.
But saying stand alone stories are better by default doesn't make any sense to me. In fact it just seems like the lazy way out for writers who are good enough at crafting a long form stories across a series of relatively self contained films.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 5, 2017 19:14:49 GMT
The good thing about the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies was that they were fairly stand-alone I don't see how that is either a good or a bad thing.
It's bad, if you are just trying to cram in things to promote a new film.
It's good, if like in Civil War you base all of your character motivations on what has come before, and you successfully establish new characters and situations that can be addressed in the future, while focusing on and completing the films main story.
But saying stand alone stories are better by default doesn't make any sense to me. In fact it just seems like the lazy way out for writers who are good enough at crafting a long form stories across a series of relatively self contained films.
Yeah, true. I guess I don't mind movies that set the tone for sequels. Even Spider-Man 2 had a little bit of a cliffhanger. I guess I just don't like those movies where they throw so much stuff in that ends up not telling much of a story at all, but rather just says "better things to come next time. Stay tuned for the sequel."
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 5, 2017 20:47:08 GMT
Yeah, true. I guess I don't mind movies that set the tone for sequels. Even Spider-Man 2 had a little bit of a cliffhanger. I guess I just don't like those movies where they throw so much stuff in that ends up not telling much of a story at all, but rather just says "better things to come next time. Stay tuned for the sequel." The thing about that is pacing. The MCU is doing well with that because they aren't cramming a lot of stuff into their movies. Amazing Spider-man 2 had enough for 3 movies to work with. They were actually going to have Mary Jane in the movie and start up Black Cat (who was there) for her movie, also. If they had the frame of mind to say, "We can keep making these movies forever so let's take our time with this" then I think the movies would have come out better. But they were trying to get to that Avengers movie (Sinister Six) right away. I don't think they should have let out that they were working toward Sinister Six. Just made movies, then boom Spider-man: Sinister Six. Also, the DCEU is having the same problem as the Amazing Spider-man movies with pacing and taking it slower.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 22:41:47 GMT
Yeah, true. I guess I don't mind movies that set the tone for sequels. Even Spider-Man 2 had a little bit of a cliffhanger. I guess I just don't like those movies where they throw so much stuff in that ends up not telling much of a story at all, but rather just says "better things to come next time. Stay tuned for the sequel." Well you make a good point. Just throwing stuff in at the end isn't the way to do it. Introducing Black Panther as a key character in Civil War, is the right way to do it. Having allusions that somebody has given Loki an army and having that turn out to be Thanos, is the right way to do it.
|
|