The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - Part 86

[PeterBenParker]

I quite enjoyed the Electro fight, though.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

That is probably the best fight in that game.
I also liked the Carnage and Kraven battles quite a bit.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

Duuudee, be thankful he let the burglar go in the films because in the game, the burglar was quickly offed in a way to introduce "C.K."

Obviously, C.K. was Cletus who was trying to get Spider-Man's attention because they were similar or some crap. A battle here, Ravencroft there, and we end up with a Carnage boss battle motivated by Peter's lack of closure of catching Ben's killer all because Cletus killed him.

The reason why he did, apparently, was because he was a vigilante or something? Kinda like Dexter but a no-name brand of him, I guess. I really can't remember nor do I really want to.

Jeepers creepers, that sounds AWFUL lol.

PBP gave an accurate description.
He didn't need to mention Spider-Man using his spider tracers to tap into phone network satellites and tower to jack in on people's private calls and listen to them to find Carradine's line.

Good ol' Spider-Man, using the Patriot Act to its fullest extent.

 

[Awest66]

Its already my favorite Spider-Man movie for those very reasons and more. For the first time in a long line of films, this one felt the most like a Spidey comic or an episode of one of the shows, and it was great.

I'll never understand the outright hatred for this film. So underrated.

The hatred is simple. It's a structural and tonal trainwreck

 

[PeterBenParker]

Repost from TASM GD Thread:

“It’s hard for me to think about it, in terms of regrets. There are so many things that I’m proud of. There was an ambition with the second movie, in particular. The idea that it’s a superhero that can’t save everybody is something that I’m really proud of. I’m really proud of the ambition of that because it’s an important message, and I believe in that. I believe in what we were after. They’re really, really difficult movies to make. They’re complex in ways that people don’t fully understand. They weren’t disasters.”

“In terms of regrets, I don’t think of it in those terms. I felt really, really fortunate to have that opportunity. That’s a whole other long, in-depth conversation that I probably shouldn’t have publicly. I loved everybody involved. I really did. I didn’t have an adversarial relationship with the studio, at all. There were a lot of very smart people. These are just incredibly complicated movies to make. I am proud of them, in many ways, and I stand by them. I’m certainly not a victim, in that situation.”

Marc Webb reflecting on TASM series.

Source: http://heroichollywood.com/amazing-spider-man-director-disasters/

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Repost from TASM GD Thread:



Marc Webb reflecting on TASM series.

Source: http://heroichollywood.com/amazing-spider-man-director-disasters/

TASM series definition in the dictionary:

 

[UltimateWebhead]

“It’s hard for me to think about it, in terms of regrets. There are so many things that I’m proud of. There was an ambition with the second movie, in particular. The idea that it’s a superhero that can’t save everybody is something that I’m really proud of. I’m really proud of the ambition of that because it’s an important message, and I believe in that.

Well, good for you, Marc. I've always thought of him as a competent director and he seems like not only a good guy but one with a good work ethic. But in the end he does share the blame for how ASM2 turned out.

I believe in what we were after. They’re really, really difficult movies to make. They’re complex in ways that people don’t fully understand.

I suppose it's more difficult when you are a puppet. It's very clear, and even more so after reading those emails that Arad and Tolmach were running the show. Therein lies the complexity. You are chosen to be the director of a film yet in the end, the movie is out of your hands and thus your creative vision for the movie is taken away from you.

They weren’t disasters.”

Define disaster. Was ASM2 a flop? No, of course not. But it's the first rotten Spider-Man film. It was so horrendous that the sequel was cancelled along with the planned Spidey universe and spin-offs, and a deal was made with the MCU to 'save' Spider-Man. IMO, this puts ASM2 as a far cry from a success.

“In terms of regrets, I don’t think of it in those terms.

It was the opportunity of a lifetime and I'm sure a good learning experience as well.

I felt really, really fortunate to have that opportunity. That’s a whole other long, in-depth conversation that I probably shouldn’t have publicly. I loved everybody involved. I really did.

The cast was/is extremely talented and it must have been excellent to work alongside them.

I didn’t have an adversarial relationship with the studio, at all.

Of course not, you just did what you were told.

There were a lot of very smart people.

Yep. They were smart enough to get in with the MCU but maybe not that smart since they were listening to Arad and probably still are since they're giving him the reins to this once again planned universe of spin-offs that will coincide but not belong to the MCU Spider-Man. Is Sony ever going to learn a lesson? One that they should have learned after SM3. Outlook not good.

These are just incredibly complicated movies to make.

And again, probably more complicated when you are puppet and these movies are 'made by committee' rather than a singular vision. See SM1 and SM2. Also, it's my opinion that Marc did and does not have a firm grasp on the character of Peter Parker and Spider-Man--that most likely added to the complexity.

I am proud of them, in many ways, and I stand by them. I’m certainly not a victim, in that situation.”

ASM2 and ASM are not without merit. They have some very nice technical features and are beautifully shot in most cases.

 

[Leenie]

Obviously, I hate the TASM movies ... But, I have some respect for Marc Webb. He's not a complainer. He's remained 100% professional about these movies. He hasn't been pointing fingers at the studio (like Josh Trank), and he hasn't called the audiences dumb or trashed other comic book movies (like Zack Snyder).

Marc Webb is probably a really chill and cool person. Even if the studios were responsible for most of TASM's follies, Marc Webb was responsible for being their Yes Man ... But that probably meant that Marc Webb's experience with making the movies was pleasant and fun for him (and if it wasn't, he's remained professional and mature about it). Good for him if he had fun.

So yeah ... Let's just say that I hope Marc Webb makes some cool movies in the future. I did love 500 Days of Summer.

 

[PeterBenParker]

Also, it's my opinion that Marc did and does not have a firm grasp on the character of Peter Parker and Spider-Man--that most likely added to the complexity.

Talking about a character that is turning 55 this August and that is ever evolving (or devolving, if you will), you're bound to get people that have the core of the candy but change the shell for a reason or another. While his take on the duality of the character is my personal favorite in terms of on-screen inception so far, it is/was by no means perfect and it seems there's a struggle to this day to get both Peter and Spidey right or at least to a happy medium.

It's baffling when we've had various forms of the character in other styles of entertainment i.e. animation that arguably do it justice, but the films struggle to make most satisfied.

Someday..

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I still think ASM is a good movie and set up potential to really tell some 'untold story' about Spider-Man...I appreciated the tone they were going for and attempting to tell a different kind of story. But like most things with this series, the ideas fell flat and were either poorly conceived, poorly developed or poorly executed or in many cases, a combination of all three.

So, yes, when you take something as sacred as Uncle Ben and cut him out in favor of Peter's parents, you have just sacrificed the core of the character. This is just one of many things that ultimately tells me that Webb didn't understand Peter Parker.

 

[PeterBenParker]

So, yes, when you take something as sacred as Uncle Ben and cut him out in favor of Peter's parents, you have just sacrificed the core of the character. This is just one of many things that ultimately tells me that Webb didn't understand Peter Parker.

That is easily debatable, but I digress.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

That is easily debatable, but I digress.

I feel the same. No real desire to debate at length anything to do with this series. But I'm happy for those that find enjoyment in them

 

[TMC1982]

Why’d it bomb? The Amazing Spider Man 2 (2014)

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Cause it sucks lol

 

[Herofan]

Why’d it bomb? The Amazing Spider Man 2 (2014)

A lot of fans hated the idea of having somewhat-comical villains (even Giamatti who was barely in the movie), declared that that made the film Batman Forever again, and there was also negativity about wasting the Goblin story and being too overpacked in general. I thought Garfield was pretty lacking in charisma in both films. Plus especially with younger viewers and their parents they wouldn't want to rewatch where the love interest is killed.
I don't think there was franchise fatigue in general but there was enough that the movie was far from critic-proof, bad reviews did a put a big dent, and maybe there was also Goblin fatigue.

 

[Flint Marko]

I still think ASM is a good movie and set up potential to really tell some 'untold story' about Spider-Man...I appreciated the tone they were going for and attempting to tell a different kind of story. But like most things with this series, the ideas fell flat and were either poorly conceived, poorly developed or poorly executed or in many cases, a combination of all three.

So, yes, when you take something as sacred as Uncle Ben and cut him out in favor of Peter's parents, you have just sacrificed the core of the character. This is just one of many things that ultimately tells me that Webb didn't understand Peter Parker.

Uncle Ben died because someone wouldn't sell Peter milk.
Instead of learning the importance of using his powers responsibly, Peter is only out for vengeance up until the movie completely forgets about that and it's time punch the villain.
It's insane how hard they dropped the ball. If you don't care about the origin of your character, just don't do it and skip straight to the fireworks.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

Peter definitely learns a responsibility lesson in TASM, it's just roundabout and convoluted.

 

[The Shape]

And in Raimi's Spider-man, Uncle Ben died because someone didn't pay Peter the amount he felt he was owed. In both films, Peter lets the thief escape purely out of spite while feeling that it wasn't his responsibility to intervene.

In all honesty, both films set-up and handled the "Death of Uncle Ben" quite similarly in terms of the lead-up to his death and how it all goes down, although they strayed further apart when dealing with the aftermath and outcomes.

In Raimi's Spider-man, Peter chases the killer directly after Uncle Ben is killed. When he catches him and realizes it is the thief that he chose to let go, it is a huge moment of clarity for him as he realizes that his own selfishness and irresponsibility led to this. The killer falls to his death. Soon after, Peter decides to become a hero (because "with great power comes great responsibility" and all that). We also hear Ben's voice-over saying the famous quote as Peter stares intently at a drawing of his Spidey suit, so it's pretty clear that this is the turning point, and the moment he becomes Spider-man.

In TASM, Peter doesn't pursue the killer directly after Uncle Ben is killed. Later that night, the police give a description of the killer and Peter realizes it is the same thief he chose to let go, due to his own selfishness and irresponsibility. He is clearly distraught. However, the killer is still on the loose, so Peter starts out by using his powers to hunt down the killer. He is clearly seeking vengeance, which Captain Stacy even expresses when discussing Spider-man's "heroics". I would argue that Peter's turning point in this film is after saving the boy from the dangling car on the bridge and seeing the father reunited with his son. That is his "with great power comes great responsibility" moment and the moment he becomes Spider-man, which he even verbally expresses to the boy's father. (Just as heavy-handed as the comparable moment in SM1 with Peter staring at the suit drawing, in a way.)

Prior to that, Uncle Ben had laid the foundation for that turning point with things he said to Peter prior to his death:

Spoiler

"You are a lot like your father. You really are, Peter, and that's a good thing. But your father by a philosophy, a principle, really. He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things! That's what's at stake here. Not choice. Responsibility."

And the missed call/voicemail from Uncle Ben that Peter listened to the night of his death. We don't hear the full voicemail until the end of the film:

Spoiler

"Peter? I know things have been difficult lately and I'm sorry about that. I think I know what you're feeling. Ever since you were a little boy, you've been living with so many unresolved things. Well, take it from an old man. Those things send us down a road... they make us who we are. And if anyone's destined for greatness, it's you, son. You owe the world your gifts. You just have to figure out how to use them and know that wherever they take you, we'll always be here. So, come on home, Peter. You're my hero... and I love you!"

After the bridge scene, Peter starts being a hero as opposed to being only a vigilante. And yes, the film kind of drops the search for Uncle Ben's killer and the whole thing could have handled better, but I think the point of that was that Peter was able to let go of that, too. Whether Peter was able to stop chasing the "scapegoat" and take full responsibility for what happened that night, or because he realized he should be putting his powers to much greater use, it didn't really matter. The concept could have been executed more clearly, though.


So I would say that Peter learns the importance of using his powers responsibly in both films, albeit in different ways and at different times. Obviously, I can understand why many prefer Peter's hero trajectory in Raimi's film, which is as classic and as cut-and-dry as it could have been. And also obviously, I'm sure most people understand that TASM had to try to do something different with it all, which must have been difficult when trying to tell nearly the same story in a reboot that was being developed/produced less than 10 years after the original was released.

Lastly, while TASM heavily leaned into Peter's feelings about his own father/parents (something I'm not even sure was even mentioned in SM1), I do think it's unfair to say the film "cut Uncle Ben out" in favor of the parents angle. Uncle Ben's storyline was featured heavily in the film and Uncle Ben's impact on Peter was still a primary factor in leading him to become Spider-man.

 

[The Joker]

Why’d it bomb? The Amazing Spider Man 2 (2014)

I don't agree with the first point about franchise fatigue. If audiences are not showing fatigue for Iron Man after like six movies and counting where he's a headline character, I don't think a fan favorite like Spider-Man was suffering from fatigue in 2014.

It's a case of it being a bad movie. Spider-Man was one of the most praised elements of CW, and that was a mere 2 years after TASM 2. Because he was great, and he was in a great movie.

When you deliver quality it pays off with praise. TASM 2 didn't do that.

Cause it sucks lol

/discussion.

Uncle Ben died because someone wouldn't sell Peter milk.
Instead of learning the importance of using his powers responsibly, Peter is only out for vengeance up until the movie completely forgets about that and it's time punch the villain.
It's insane how hard they dropped the ball. If you don't care about the origin of your character, just don't do it and skip straight to the fireworks.

Exactly. There's a world of difference between acting out of spite when you're cheated out of thousands of dollars, and when you're denied some CHOCOLATE MILK! Even the comic book Peter was not this petty. He let a thief run past him because he felt it was not his job to interfere in such things. Not a responsible thing to do, but it is understandable why someone might do that.

Letting a store be robbed because you didn't get some dollar's worth of chocolate milk......that is pathetic. It's indicative of the kind of unlikable nature of this version of the character. Even how he got his powers was done in a way that made him look a *****e by stealing some guy's I.D. badge and pretending to be him, and then watching happily as the kid he's impersonating gets thrown out.

The fact that the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer, and indeed Uncle Ben himself is ultimately dropped, and the narrative shifts both here and in the sequel towards Peter's parents being much more important to Peter than Uncle Ben shows how badly they screwed up the origin.

Peter never had that moment all great origin stories for heroes have where they make that choice, where they are impacted by something that steers them on the hero's path.

Man of Steel is another recent movie guilty of that as well. Clark is a hero saving lives from the get-go, and is the same at the end. There's no character growth for him, unless you call putting on a cape to save people as character development. But he's like Peter in TASM where he never has that moment where he chooses the path of the hero for specific reasons (LOL even though his father is telling him not to, and at the same time telling him he'll change the world one day).

CW made sure to have it gauged why Peter does his hero thing when he's being cross examined by Tony, and I think part of the reason they did that is because TASM glossed over such an important element.

 

[Flint Marko]

And in Raimi's Spider-man, Uncle Ben died because someone didn't pay Peter the amount he felt he was owed. In both films, Peter lets the thief escape purely out of spite while feeling that it wasn't his responsibility to intervene.

In all honesty, both films set-up and handled the "Death of Uncle Ben" quite similarly in terms of the lead-up to his death and how it all goes down, although they strayed further apart when dealing with the aftermath and outcomes.

In Raimi's Spider-man, Peter chases the killer directly after Uncle Ben is killed. When he catches him and realizes it is the thief that he chose to let go, it is a huge moment of clarity for him as he realizes that his own selfishness and irresponsibility led to this. The killer falls to his death. Soon after, Peter decides to become a hero (because "with great power comes great responsibility" and all that). We also hear Ben's voice-over saying the famous quote as Peter stares intently at a drawing of his Spidey suit, so it's pretty clear that this is the turning point, and the moment he becomes Spider-man.

In TASM, Peter doesn't pursue the killer directly after Uncle Ben is killed. Later that night, the police give a description of the killer and Peter realizes it is the same thief he chose to let go, due to his own selfishness and irresponsibility. He is clearly distraught. However, the killer is still on the loose, so Peter starts out by using his powers to hunt down the killer. He is clearly seeking vengeance, which Captain Stacy even expresses when discussing Spider-man's "heroics". I would argue that Peter's turning point in this film is after saving the boy from the dangling car on the bridge and seeing the father reunited with his son. That is his "with great power comes great responsibility" moment and the moment he becomes Spider-man, which he even verbally expresses to the boy's father. (Just as heavy-handed as the comparable moment in SM1 with Peter staring at the suit drawing, in a way.)

Prior to that, Uncle Ben had laid the foundation for that turning point with things he said to Peter prior to his death:

Spoiler

"You are a lot like your father. You really are, Peter, and that's a good thing. But your father by a philosophy, a principle, really. He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things! That's what's at stake here. Not choice. Responsibility."

And the missed call/voicemail from Uncle Ben that Peter listened to the night of his death. We don't hear the full voicemail until the end of the film:

Spoiler

"Peter? I know things have been difficult lately and I'm sorry about that. I think I know what you're feeling. Ever since you were a little boy, you've been living with so many unresolved things. Well, take it from an old man. Those things send us down a road... they make us who we are. And if anyone's destined for greatness, it's you, son. You owe the world your gifts. You just have to figure out how to use them and know that wherever they take you, we'll always be here. So, come on home, Peter. You're my hero... and I love you!"

After the bridge scene, Peter starts being a hero as opposed to being only a vigilante. And yes, the film kind of drops the search for Uncle Ben's killer and the whole thing could have handled better, but I think the point of that was that Peter was able to let go of that, too. Whether Peter was able to stop chasing the "scapegoat" and take full responsibility for what happened that night, or because he realized he should be putting his powers to much greater use, it didn't really matter. The concept could have been executed more clearly, though.


So I would say that Peter learns the importance of using his powers responsibly in both films, albeit in different ways and at different times. Obviously, I can understand why many prefer Peter's hero trajectory in Raimi's film, which is as classic and as cut-and-dry as it could have been. And also obviously, I'm sure most people understand that TASM had to try to do something different with it all, which must have been difficult when trying to tell nearly the same story in a reboot that was being developed/produced less than 10 years after the original was released.

Lastly, while TASM heavily leaned into Peter's feelings about his own father/parents (something I'm not even sure was even mentioned in SM1), I do think it's unfair to say the film "cut Uncle Ben out" in favor of the parents angle. Uncle Ben's storyline was featured heavily in the film and Uncle Ben's impact on Peter was still a primary factor in leading him to become Spider-man.

The biggest problem with TASM's route to responsibility is that it just kind of happens with no real change in who Peter is as a character.

In the Raimi films he acts irresponsibly, and his actions are directly linked to why Uncle Ben got killed. He then realizes the importance of acting responsibly and this forever changes who he is.

In TASM he lets a theif get by him for the pettiest reason imaginable, and then Uncle Ben kinda gets himself killed by trying to fight for the guys gun on the ground. We hadn't seen Peter revel in his spider powers or seek glory, so it's not like he let the guy go because of some unchecked hubris. Peter is then sad that his uncle is dead, and seeks vengeance upon the killer. Is there any moment where Peter realizes that his actions were what led to Ben's death, and makes a change in who he is and what he's doing? I understand that's what we the audience are supposed to infer, but is that conveyed by the movie? He then proceeds to only seek revenge for a few weeks, so I'd argue that it isn't.

You're right in that the moment on the bridge is supposed to be the moment where he embraces the Spider-man mantra, but why? He had already made a Spider-man costume and was swinging around fighting criminals, if only for vengeance. Why did he decide to save the one child on the bridge (never mind the fact that there were totally more people in those cars) other than "because it's the right thing to do"? When did he make a choice that changed him? He was kind of a dick before he got bit by a spider, and he was kind of a dick after he got bit by a spider. Where's the change? I get what they were going for simply because I know the story but it was poorly handled and then seemingly forgotten about entirely. If there's something I'm forgetting then let me know because I haven't watched the first ASM movie in a while, and am just going off my last memory of it.

 

[harryoscop]

It's better than having his suit taken away by another hero because he doesn't know the meaning of responsibility

But in all seriousness, why did he decide to save the child on the bridge? Because it Marc Webb's own words, he saw himself in the kid. It reminded him of his own dad & how Richard left him. He wanted to be able to stop that from happening to anybody else

 

[The Joker]

It's better than having his suit taken away by another hero because he doesn't know the meaning of responsibility

Please harry, get yourself back on probation again. It was bliss around these parts without you posting this stirring crap.

But in all seriousness, why did he decide to save the child on the bridge? Because it Marc Webb's own words, he saw himself in the kid. It reminded him of his own dad & how Richard left him. He wanted to be able to stop that from happening to anybody else

We shouldn't need the director to tell us that. It should show through in the scene, which it didn't.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's better than having his suit taken away by another hero because he doesn't know the meaning of responsibility

But in all seriousness, why did he decide to save the child on the bridge? Because it Marc Webb's own words, he saw himself in the kid. It reminded him of his own dad & how Richard left him. He wanted to be able to stop that from happening to anybody else

Yeah, maybe that would have been nice if it were actually in the movie. But it isn't. And moreover, it's not his classic origin; how many tantrums have you thrown out of fear that they were going to undermine Ben's death in Homecoming? And here you are explaining why Peter embraces the responsibility, and it has nothing to do with Uncle Ben. Classic.

 

[harryoscop]

It totally was. You saw it through the mask when Peter was watching the guy hug his son. The first time I saw the movie I knew what Webb was trying to convey

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, maybe that would have been nice if it were actually in the movie. But it isn't. And moreover, it's not his classic origin; how many tantrums have you thrown out of fear that they were going to undermine Ben's death in Homecoming? And here you are explaining why Peter embraces the responsibility, and it has nothing to do with Uncle Ben. Classic.

It totally was. You saw it through the mask when Peter was watching the guy hug his son. The first time I saw the movie I knew what Webb was trying to convey

It totally wasn't. It simply came across as Peter trying to reassure a scared child in a dangerous situation, and the kid being embraced by the grateful parent. Nothing more. Nothing less.