What did you think of The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

News Den Of Geek 18 Apr 2014 - 07:15

A place for spoiler-filled chat about The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which is now in UK cinemas...

Beware: lots of spoilers.

Now playing in cinemas across the UK, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 builds on the last movie, and sets things in place for where Sony wants to take the Spider-Man cinematic universe next. It also leaves behind lots of things to discuss and digest, and so we're opening this post to allow as much spoiler-filled discussion as you'd like.

To be clear: if you head into the comments below, you do so at your own risk. All spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are allowed from this point onwards.

Over to you, then...!

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Thank you =)

Finally managed to go an see this last night. Was pleasantly surprised by it being a lot better than expected (and a whole lot better than the first one). The action sequences were fantastic, the central relationship between Peter and Gwen was very well done and, on the whole, I found it a very entertaining film. My only gripe was that in a film where, apart from Peter and Gwen, a lot of it felt rushed and not earned (Peter and Harry being friends, Max flipping from a good hearted guy to an evil mad man, Harry's decline), there was a lot of uneccessary time spent on the mystery of Peter's parents which was neither mysterious nor interesting. This, sadly, was a corner the film makers had painted themselves into by highlighting this as a major plot point (which went nowhere) in the first one. Hopefully, with this now resolved, it will be full steam ahead in the third one. Overall, while I still much prefer the way the Raimi films did the Peter-Harry story, I'm much more optimistic about this new series. Oh dear, I may have just jinxed it - cue reboot.

You're most welcome.

Ok, I'm a fan of Spiderman. Spiderman introduce me the Marvel Universe. For that reason I hate he wasn't part of the avengers movie or dissapointed that Shield never show up improving his costume. But anyway... About the movie, by far the most accurate Spiderman I've ever seen on a theather. Peter is not a loser as Tobie Maguire portraited him. This Amazing Spiderman's Peter is the Peter I see when I read the comics. I have 40 years old. I remember how dissapointed I was when Raimi's Spiderman show up Peter shooting web from his wrists organically like body fluids. I was like "NOOOO" then everything went from bad to worst. The only movie I love from that trilogy is Part 2 with Dr. Octopus. I need to express myself and share that I'm really happy for this new Spiderman edition. It is less movie realistic and more comic based that you can inmerge in every scene and get confuse between the movie and your mind trip. The story is very true to the comic and even the type of jokes and personality of Spidey is picture perfect. Well done!

Why I detest the new Spider-Man Movies.

(Peppe Iannucci – Spidey fan from age 4)

I grew up reading Spider-Man. Not just picking up the casual comic here and there, but everything Spider-Man I could get my hands on, which back in the 80’s in the UK wasn’t that easy. I would read them at the table during dinner, I would read them in the middle of class avoiding getting told off, I would read them ...as a young teen walking through town. While the rest of my friends were trying to be bad asses, I literally had my head buried in a comic as we walked around. On more than 1 occasion groups of other kids had tried to rob me of money (by asking menacingly) but I was so submersed in Spidey’s world I never even lifted my head.

Spider-Man took me away to another world (New York) just like Harry Potter fans were whisked away to their own private Hogworts . As with the Potter books I was attracted to the well rounded characters with their interesting back stories and character quirks.

While at Uni I was poor. Real poor. I had no car, no money, no mobile phone, no computer, and no TV. Think about that right now. No internet. If I saved enough money I could afford 1 comic a week, and I would read it multiple times. While at uni the first Spider-Man film came out. Was it perfect? No. How could it be to a super fan like me? Did I love it? Yes. Why?

It had heart.

Comparing the new films to the (not that) old ones is like comparing a McDonalds cheese burger to a gourmet burger. Everyone likes a McD’s cheeseburger right? It fills a hole. It doesn’t try to be anything special. It is what it is. How do they make it better? They add more meat and cheese. Bingo! A double cheeseburger. More stuff in it = better burger. Now if you are used to eating a gourmet burger where a chef has thought about the backstory of all the ingredients involved, where he has thought about the balance of flavours. It may case you to have your own Falling Down moment. You know what doesn’t make a gourmet burger better? More stuff in it! Again nothing wrong with a McD’s Cheeseburger but if you go to your favourite restaurant and order a burger and they bring out a McD’s cheeseburger you are going to be upset. If you then complain and they bring out a double you are still going to be pissed off.

So let me explain. Sam Raimi made a movie that had heart. Peter Parker was an awkward social outcast. When he became Spider-Man and put on the mask he became free. He used cockiness to hide his fear and nerves. Garfields version of Peter is kind of a jerk. He is a cocky jerk when he is Spidey (great) and he is the same when he is Parker. Thus changing the whole character. In fact the director of the new films, Mr.Webb, changes so many thing about all of the characters that they become unrecognisable besides their names and powers (if they have them).

Why should any of this matter if the film is OK? If you are a huge fan of a book series and they change so many things it no longer becomes the book you love you would not be happy. Imagine if they made Harry Potter a cocky skate boarding jerk. On top of that they turned Hermione into a sexy party animal, Ron Weasly into a super smart spell caster, Dumbledore into a younger hipper more emotional version of himself. And maybe they decide to leave a great character like Snape out altogether (J.Johna Jameson) and just mention him in passing on occasion. Why we are at it lets introduce a bland black haired character who does nothing in the film and we will call him Draco Malfoy. Just you know to drop the name in. Finally lets make Dolores Umbridge a man and a scientist rather than a wizard. By now the TRUE Harry Potter fans are throwing up in their mouths. Welcome to my world.

Why should this matter if they make a good movie? OK imagine they make the above movie NEXT YEAR starting with the first book, but they change the story to make it different enough from the first film so the whole project seems worth while. More puke Potter fans? I don’t blame you!
I lover the Potter films even though I never read the books and from what I hear if I read the books I would still like the movies. If you read a large portion of the Spider-Man comics you would no longer love the new films but you would warm to the older ones.

The new Spider-Man films have no heart. They are fine for the guys and girls who have read a couple of Graphic Novels, put on a Marvel T-Shirt and proclaim they are a geek. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is slightly better than its predecessor, like a double cheeseburger is to a Cheeseburger.
I’m sorry I can never love a Spider-Man movie than has an Aunt May who doesn’t try her best to hide her struggles from her only frail looking nephew. One that dare not utter the words “With great power comes great responsibility” And finally a movie that cares so little about the source material they use the line “Web crawler” to describe Spider-man on a news report.

For all of you so called HUGE Spider-Man fans out there its WALL CRAWLER.

Peppe Iannucci
- Age 35 and still a Spidey fan

Yes, because he was overcompensating. A wimpy nerd suddenly feeling empowered to the nth degree with inhibitions completely diminished? Of course he's going to act like that. You see? Detractors don't understand.

It was the funniest part of the film, you people go way over the top about it.

You really need to stop with the "detractors don't understand" just because I don't agree, or don't feel it was a good scene doesn't mean I am unable to comprehend what was going on or what was intended. Yes an influx of power is going to change a person. And yes inhibitions will be diminished. And with a wimpy socially awkward person this result could be more outlandish. But Peter hasn't been a wimp or socially awkward for years by SP3. He is an adult with functional relationships, including the girl of his dreams, a job and is a powerful superhero. If anything, going by your argument, peter should have been acting this way when he first became Spider-Man. And even using that idea of diminished inhibitions, that's no excuse for poor dialogue, cheesy actions, and just generally poor film making. If you like that fine. But I, like most people, thought it was just awful.

I agree to a point. I liked the stalker take on Max Dillion a lot, but I would have preferred it if it were a little more unsettling and less light-hearted. The family friendly sad nerd made it hard for me to become invested in the character. The initial Electro/Spidey confrontation was fantastic tho.

I actually never felt it was too over stuffed. Rhino served as a great glimpse into the day to day life of Spider-man. Harry/Oscorp are the main villain (for the whole series it seems). Electro just symbolized the villainy of Oscorp that Spider-man will have to deal with. He wasn't the actual antagonist, just the result. The goblin coming in at the end was Spider-man finally getting a glimpse at the real threat that he faces down the road. Gwen/Aunt may showed the true cost of fight (death, alienation, loss). I hated the first Spider-Man and thought this was a great improvement. It was not only a better movie, but functioned well as a 2nd act to a greater story.

Agreed. I think this is the first time we have actually seen Peter Parker in the movies.

You don't understand though, that' why IM3 detractors for instance actually believe that Killian attacked Stark because he got left on a roof, they have no idea.

Peter was always socially awkward. Less so after becoming Spiderman, but it's still there.

"If anything, going by your argument, peter should have been acting this way when he first became Spider-Man."

So then you don't understand! Like I said, the symbiote altered his personality so his inhibitions were diminished. It literally changed who he was, whereas getting powers just increased his confidence, they didn't make him lose his sense of shame, self awareness etc.

Hey, I'm not saying that it's a particularly good film, watched it recently and was kinda bored, but to say it's bad with that scene being atrocious, that's just ridiculous.

Empowerment and increased confidence are basically the same thing.
Actually, I believe I stated in my previous post that the symobite was changing who he was. And that, being the central character, that was a huge deal. I agree his behavior should change, that inhibitions should be lowered, and that he is going to act like an ass. The concept was good, my argument is that the execution of the concept was poor. I think it was a bad movie (not entirely Rami's fault) and that that one scene is extremely poor done (entirely Rami's fault)

Increased confidence and empowerment with diminished inhibitions are two very different things, I can't believe you're trying to argue this, you see, you don't understand.

The difference is like me shooting a gun at objects and shooting a gun at people, they're two completely different things, one of which I wouldn't ordinarily do. Well, I don't do either, but you get my point. Or do you still not? You gotta admit, it is embarrassing for people to look down on something so much and not even understand it.

I dunno, it would've been a bit generic for him to just be a bit more violent or something, what we got was different. Unique.

I don't think you realize how asinine you sound when you keep saying that people don't understand. I simply said that empowerment and confidence are the same thing. I did not say that confidence and empowerment with reduced inhibitions are the same thing. However, I would state that an increase in confidence almost by definition does decrease our inhibitions. Yet it is clear that the symboite reduced said inhibitions even further. And I am not a complete $@*&ing moron I can understand what you mean by decreased his inhibitions and what that would entail. As could anyone who has watched the scene. Another poster pointed out, it's not a complex scene. This is not exactly a David Lynch film layered with subtlety and complex symbolism. And as I have said, quite plainly. I am not arguing that Peter would not change. Or even change drastically. My argument is purely an artistic one. The manner in which they depicted his change was cheezy.

I will agree with you on the point that what they attempted was a little more unique. And for that they should be applauded. However, the end result was bad. A generic approach ceases to be generic when done with skill. When added with emotional resonance and character depth, increasing Peters aggression and apathy would have been a profoundly disturbing (for a comic book movie that is) to him and the audience.

"I don't think you realize how asinine you sound when you keep saying that people don't understand."

Says the one that has demonstrated how little he has understood in practically every comment. But I'm teaching you, you're learning and this is good.

I don't think that being socially awkward for your entire life makes you behave like an 80s high school baddie when you feel confident and empowered and with lowered inhibitions. Specially if you are a sweet guy, something Peter Parker always was.

I don't think that it was the worst movie ever at all, just worse than expected after the great second movie. However, I agree with those who say that scene is bad. I mean, IMO the scene came out EXACTLY as they planned, and it was effective in that way, I just think that they chose the wrong way. Watching Peter "lose it" should have been a deep and emotional moment, a touch of comedy was OK because it is Spidey, but a touch. Not that scene, which came out hilariously ridiculous.

The tone was off, paritcularly in Reimi's trilogy, which wasn't much about the humour, it just didn't feel right for me in the mood the trilogy had set. The same scene in the new mood of TAS would have felt different for me.

I really enjoyed it personally. A lot of people compare it to Spider-Man 3, but I disagree. For starters, Andrew Garfield plays a far better Spider-Man than Maguire (who was overall stiff and boring with little wise-cracking) and Gwen Stacey is not portrayed as a bimbo like in the previous series. People say there were 'too many villians', but consider this: technically Electro was the main villain coz he was in it most of the movie and the Green Goblin and Rhino got very little screen time. Plus if Spidey wasn't there to stop Electro he would have managed to become an electric god and Harry would have been able to do nothing against him in his suit and glider. So who was the movies greatest threat overall?
I am a little disappointed by the fact that the Goblin only appeared in the climax, but as a fan of the comics he portrayed the Goblin well; he was completely irrational and insane, and his laugh was spot on. Harry was like that in the comics, just like Norman Osborn. So apart from the brief screen time, it was a spot on performance. And considering he survived, lets not count him out of a sequel just yet. I would love to see him return to try and kill Spidey again!

Totally agree. It was Peter suddenly relishing in his Spidey superiority but as he is such a good guy even his showing off comes off geeky. He was really impressed with his "cool moves" as he isn't really that up with what's in (like a daggy dad dance) and the response of those around him shows how we too would react to some guy dancing like that on the street. Also, Connors mentions the symbiote being similar meteorites ones found in the 70's thus the disco influence on Peter. And I love the scene where he gets Ursula to bring him some more milk for his cookies while he's rolling his eyes at Connors over the phone: this is how a good guy acts like a gangster, it shows Peter's inherent goodness/ naivety/ dorkiness. Hipster is an evolving term. However, Raimi's Peter would not have had a DIIV and David Bowie's "Low' poster on his wall. Sorry, but Raimi's Peter is much closer do the comic book Peter, Let's not forget that Spider-Man's "reward" is adventure as per his theme song, while Peter Parker has to deal with the rest of the stuff we all deal with. He is a nerd/ geek/ dork and there's nothing wrong with that. The darkest he gets is with his attempt to make MJ jealous at the bar and accidently hits her after letting himself lose control where he would normally be so careful with his strength.

Sponsored Links