Official The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Thread

Mecha wrote:

Or this...

Honestly, he looks fucking ridiculous in this suit

He still look pretty damn stupid. A turd is still a turd.

I like the way he looks. 

There's an opinion, and then there's a Yonny opinion. Either way, a yonny opinion or a turd, it's still the same.

TeamRambo +1

I think he looks even worse than in the Raimi movies.

Why couldn't we just have this?

The world is about to end: I agree with Orion.

@Rambo & Mecha Yall nikkas jus mad cuz yuh kno im right.

They just began airing the TV-Commercials over here. :) 

Might watch it in the theater around its April 17th premiere.

Looks like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is getting somewhat mixed reviews. Mostly positive though, but it's like Man of Steel all over again. For example, the reviews are complaining that the tone is too much like The Avengers. Well fuck, last time checked The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a Marvel film as well. If anything Spider-Man comics are suppose to be more lighthearted than The Avengers. I dunno. We'll see once the movie comes out.

Noticed none of these except Stan Lee and after credits.

Fuck Critics, this movie is awesome!

One thing nerds hate: romance in superhero films.

Yet, they complain that Man of Steel lacked in romance. I swear, critics are starting to get retarded when to comic book films. If people don't like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 or Man of Steel, then fine. But the reasons they give for not liking those films are not valid reasons.

What do you mean "critics". As far as I know, RT critics mostly enjoyed the romance.

So the problems critics have with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the tone and the structure of the film, correct?

Mecha wrote:

So the problems critics have with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the tone and the structure of the film, correct?

No. It's the inconsistencies of how the tone changes throughout the film, and how the film feels like it was made to set-up future spin-offs/sequels, which - to them - hurts the overall package. 

Those are both pretty good arguments for not liking a movie.

No it's not. Critics are saying that the tone is similar to Batman & Robin or a cartoon show. That's HIGHLY exaggerated. There are far worse comic book movies with inconsistencies tones that somehow get good reviews.

As for setting up future sequels and spin-offs, what comic book movie doesn't do that nowadays?

Mecha wrote:

No it's not. Critics are saying that the tone is similar to Batman & Robin or a cartoon show. That's HIGHLY exaggerated. There are far worse comic book movies with inconsistencies tones that somehow get good reviews.

As for setting up future sequels and spin-offs, what comic book movie doesn't do that nowadays?

No. No, they are not.  

Find me 3 professional critics that said the tone is similar to Batman & Robin. 

Some critics mentioned that it felt like a cartoon, yes, but most of the cirtics that did, didn't use it as a negative. 

Here's quote from a critic:

Quote :

All these storylines run into and over one another while director Webb struggles — and fails — to find a consistent tone (is it any wonder?). At times the movie takes on a light, nearly silly attitude; at others, it’s all heavy mystery or life and death; and then when the action scenes hit, it’s mainly the equivalent of visual screeching.

That's an issue with inconsistent tone, and NOT because it's lighthearted. Not enough? Okay:

Quote :

The trouble with director Marc Webb's disappointing sequel is it wants to have it both ways: to take seriously human connection and loss and also spin the spectacular and pulpy. When superhero movies pull this mix off, they are a thing of pop-culture beauty.
"Spider-Man 2" never locates that sweet spot.

That's yet another tone issue with the film. 

Also, they're not complaining that it sets up future successors; they're complaining that so much time is spent on so many things that - not only don't work fully - but that are taking away time from other things in the movie that are more relevant, and that should've been explored instead.

@Rambo

It's only lighthearted when Spider-Man fights off crime that has very little connection to his personal life. But once he takes off his mask and becomes Peter Parker, that's when we see a more human story of the film. Don't see how that's more inconsistent compare to the Sam Raimi movies that critics love so much.

Also I didn't think they spent so much time on so many things. Did the film had many different storylines happening all at once? Yeah, I'll admit that. But that's what sequels are for. To explore what's left of the storylines even further.

As for it being like Batman & Robin...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=98240

IDk if anybody cares or not, but I was listening to TASM2 soundtrack and it's pretty cool.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a lower score than Man of Steel on RT. The critics have gone full retard.

Mecha wrote:

@Rambo

1.It's only lighthearted when Spider-Man fights off crime that has very little connection to his personal life. But once he takes off his mask and becomes Peter Parker, that's when we see a more human story of the film. Don't see how that's more inconsistent compare to the Sam Raimi movies that critics love so much.

2.Also I didn't think they spent so much time on so many things. Did the film had many different storylines happening all at once? Yeah, I'll admit that. But that's what sequels are for. To explore what's left of the storylines even further.

As for it being like Batman & Robin...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=98240

1. I highly doubt those are the only tone differences throughout the movie, but okay.

2. You didn't think it spent time on many things? But, wait, it DID have many different storylines at once? Which is it? 

Again, it's not just that it spent time on many things, it's that a lot of that time was spent on things that mattered less than others, which ended up hurting the overall package. 

I told you to show me 3 professional critics, and you gave me a single one. Gotcha. 

What I find the most ironic here is how you first say the critics don't have valid reasons, but then you agree with almost every (professional) critics certain complaints about the film. 

Again, like I said to begin with: They're complaining about tone issues that the film tries to handle, but that don't work as well as the movie wants them to. And they feel things were spent on things that should've gotten less attention due to not being as pivotal as others that could've had more attention.

For you to say critics have gone retard for having valid reason that even you, yourself, is actually agreeing with just goes to show.