Amazing Spider-Man 2 review with spoilers!

[madmarva]

Nope. That's exponentially "worse" than those screenwriters and your analogy makes the idea go from "arguably efficient" to "flat-out silly".

Exactly Huedell, I was using the absurd to make a point. Glad you caught that.

And as far as hardcore fans, who else is going to care about the origins of the villains anyway? Most who went to see the movie have no emotional interest in the character beyond what the film is capable of generating for a couple of hours. Only a fan is going to think twice about the film after seeing it. Most viewers are in the theater to spend some time with their kids or significant others or buddies as much as they are to see the movie. No big deal. They want to see some cool special effects, some action and fights and the good guy win. Most wouldn't know or couldn't care less that the movie deviates from the source material. Maybe a lot of them never read a comic book at all. And it's great that so many general viewers enjoy super hero films today that all these movies get made.

Only the fans care enough to nitpick and that's what we're really doing. For the most part, the movie delivers. Could it have been better? Sure it could. But it also could have been a lot worse.

But Huedell, we know that the movie and the opinion you expressed isn't really what you care about. Over the years, you've made it very clear all you really care about is arguing ad nauseam. And you do it so well. You balance being just abrasive and obnoxious enough to keep things riled up without going far enough to get banned.

So, bravo. I give the devil his due. You've done it again. Aren't you proud.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Its just really lazy writing and also thinking that most people are too stupid to be able to handle anything not tied up in neat little bundles like someone seems to enjoy. As an aside, can't wait a year or so and see all the transformer Rhino figures still sitting around at TRU.

[hedrap]

What's "less plausible" about a guy with a billion dollar company at his disposal rounding up a bunch of criminals (that ALREADY work for him) to work for him in a super-powered capacity? These are mostly all thugs and losers who could EASILY get bought by the highest bidder---you know, the boss-guy with a billion dollars. The more crafty evil scientists join on for "revenge" reasons or blackmail or whatever.

It's MUCH less plausible that all those freaks happened into sand creators, rhino transformers, etc etc.

Wait. So "reality" is a billionaire who hires criminals with the goal of making them into super-freaks? How do you gel that with the Bugle and it's incessant coverage of super-fights?

I get that you like the tight threading Hue, but it's only plausible if you're going for soap opera. The only way Osborne could disassociate himself from his super-crew is if he killed each one after they failed. Otherwise, one arrest will give Capt Stacey, or JJJ, a name, an employer and their tech. After that, OsCorp is prime suspect and that's with only one arrest, because the criminals are not capable of doing this on their own. You turn out two or three super-villains and "logic" has SHIELD getting involved as they shut the place down. It would be great - for one movie. Not a series.

The way it could have, (IMO opinion should have) worked, is Parker's dad, Ock and Connors works for Osborne with Ock in a different department. From there, it could have splintered out with a loose association. So OsCorp could have been ground zero, but once the genie is out OsCorp can no longer be the source, (which it apparently is still going to be). I mean, it's beyond lazy to associate Kraven with the group as another powered-up tech. The whole point of the character is he's a international hunter/hired killer brought in. If Osborne powers him up, too, he's no different than Rhino.

[thunderbolt]

Why use your whole post if there's no reason to? It was PERFECTLY in context. You didn't even quote anyone to begin with. At least I did that. Everyone knows we're talking about "consolidating origins".

and there you go again. Besides, your professed love of Superman III negates any defense you make of anything. I'm starting to remember why I had you on ignore for a year or so.

[palitoy]

There's even a setup at the end showing Doc Ock's tentacles and Vulture's wings, both of which are apparently now Oscorp creations. That undermines the characters of Otto Octavius and Adrian Toomes by reducing their own genius inventions to Oscorp handouts for the villain of the week. That's my other problem with the movie. Oscorp is behind EVERYTHING. The biggest villains in the movie are an evil board of directors and a wacky scientist.

Yeah, I think that's the underpinning of my apathy towards this franchise. I really loved the first two Riami films, the third one just needed Richard Pryor to be the worst part 3 ever.

I watched ASM and it's got all this needless underlay of Peter's parents being spies but the heart of the plot (the Lizard making everyone Lizards) is taken straight from the Superfriends. Even this whole "Oscorp makes all the villains" is right out of the 90s Spider-Man toon. The rest just feels like fan service to me.

These are just rentals to me.

[huedell]

In the future use my whole post, instead of using it out of context.

Why use your whole post if there's no reason to? It was PERFECTLY in context. You didn't even quote anyone to begin with. At least I did that. Everyone knows we're talking about "consolidating origins".

[huedell]

Exactly, just like the ASM screenwriters.

Nope. That's exponentially "worse" than those screenwriters and your analogy makes the idea go from "arguably efficient" to "flat-out silly".

I can rationalize the debate over the "efficient" part (it's a hardcore Spidey comicbook-fan's luxury to see it the other way, I suppose)---but for you to use the Batman-villain analogy to prove the point, at best muddles it with a whole new aspect of plot thread unity (it becomes "inarguable coincidence" at that point rather than "believably logical") and, at worst, your analogy disproves itself by getting uber-wacky with the backstory... the two layers you're laying out makes it a mathematical thing rather than a somewhat evenly matched "opinion" scenario.

[madmarva]

You just added a whole full generation of coincidence.

Exactly, just like the ASM screenwriters.

As Tbolt wrote, it works for you, and that's great, but for others it doesn't. There's no harm either way. It's personal preference.

All of these super hero origins are preposterous to begin with. None of them have an ounce of plausibility whether the heroes are interconnected to their villains or not.

Beyond stating our opinions, there's really nothing left to discuss. We're not going to change each other's minds.

[huedell]

But I think the film makers are rushing things somewhat in these movies.
The first film should have focused solely on the death of Uncle Ben. The death of Captain Stacy should have been saved until the second film, and Gwen's demise should have waited until the third movie.
That's the kind of dramatic pacing that would have imbued each one of those pivotal losses in Peter's life the gravity and impact they truly warranted.
That would have made a dramatically satisfying and balanced trilogy. And with plans to make more than three movies in this series anyway, they certainly did not need to rush things.

Maybe they didn't need to rush things, but I feel they needed to differentiate things from the Raimi movies, so the sooner they're away from the heavy Ben stuff the better. That doesn't mean they eliminate the imact or lesson learned from the Ben stuff, but the more overt stuff has been done already, so it needs to be minimized so the Webb films stand more on their own.

And the focus on Peter's parents is something that Webb should have avoided, in my opinion. I didn't like that arc in the comics, either. Aunt May and Uncle Ben are/were the parent figures in Peter's life.

And they always will be the parent figures. Adding his blood parents to the mix and the contrast it gives to his relationship with May/Ben only adds more dimension and strength to it.

[thunderbolt]

If it makes it easier for you to grasp then more power to you. I just find it really contrived and a lot less believable. In the future use my whole post, instead of using it out of context.

[huedell]

To me it makes it less plausible.

What's "less plausible" about a guy with a billion dollar company at his disposal rounding up a bunch of criminals (that ALREADY work for him) to work for him in a super-powered capacity? These are mostly all thugs and losers who could EASILY get bought by the highest bidder---you know, the boss-guy with a billion dollars. The more crafty evil scientists join on for "revenge" reasons or blackmail or whatever.

It's MUCH less plausible that all those freaks happened into sand creators, rhino transformers, etc etc.

[huedell]

It's like making the Riddler, Joker and Penguin all members of the same street gang as teens and having their fathers laid off by Wayne Enterprises forcing them into a life of crime.

Not really. You just added a whole full generation of coincidence.

[thunderbolt]

To me it makes it less plausible and more contrived and dare I say it, more comic book-y. I think you can blame every bit of this sort of compression on Tim Burton. He's the one that replaced Joe Chill with the Joker in Batman.

[madmarva]

^your last two posts are exactly what I didn't like about the movie.

Some have said tying Spidey and all the villains back to the same project at Oscorp makes it all the more plausible, but like you wrote, it tends to undermine each villain and is just too coincidental.

It's like making the Riddler, Joker and Penguin all members of the same street gang as teens and having their fathers laid off by Wayne Enterprises forcing them into a life of crime.

[enyawd72]

D, the way you describe it, it sounds as if this new film made many of the same errors as Raimi's Spider-Man 3.

The entire movie is a conundrum...the filmmakers went out of their way to create a spot on, comics accurate portrayal of Spider-Man, while simultaneously going as far as possible in the complete opposite direction with all three of the villains.
If the hero can put on a pair of tights and be accepted by the audience, why not the villain(s)?
Electro was passable, but I'd have found a way to recreate his classic comic look. As for the Goblin, we're given a terminally ill leper-cyborg? Then there's the Transformer they called the Rhino.

There's even a setup at the end showing Doc Ock's tentacles and Vulture's wings, both of which are apparently now Oscorp creations. That undermines the characters of Otto Octavius and Adrian Toomes by reducing their own genius inventions to Oscorp handouts for the villain of the week. That's my other problem with the movie. Oscorp is behind EVERYTHING. The biggest villains in the movie are an evil board of directors and a wacky scientist.