Title: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Trippy on December 05, 2013, 12:37:14 PM Official trailer is up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp3Ra3Yp74
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Fordel on December 05, 2013, 12:44:56 PM The Action looks pretty damn good.
The acting looks pretty damn cringe worthy. Sony is just going to keep making Spiderman movies till the end of time now, aren't they? Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on December 05, 2013, 12:57:09 PM The amount of fank wank in there was staggering.
Looks good tho, for what it is. That said, I'm really not sure about the casting of Harry. Like, really not sure. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 05, 2013, 01:02:19 PM I didn't have high hopes for the last Spiderman film because I couldn't see the point of rebooting the franchise again so soon after the last set of movies, but it turned out to be pretty good.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: tazelbain on December 05, 2013, 01:07:19 PM The last movie was horrible, I couldn't even finish it.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 05, 2013, 01:12:10 PM There is nothing about that trailer that looked good.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Pennilenko on December 05, 2013, 01:28:55 PM By your combined reactions, I predict a decently entertaining movie for normal people.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: sickrubik on December 05, 2013, 01:38:12 PM I... am dubious. The one thing that made me interested was in fact Harry. That kid is a good actor and can play "crazy" pretty well.
The really weird thing is the Rhino stuff. Like, really weird. A mech suit instead? Also, it's curious that Giamatti has no horn in the scene with the machine gun, but has a dashed line across his head. That was something that people assumed was there for the CG stuff. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: HaemishM on December 05, 2013, 02:39:09 PM I didn't have strong feelings about the first one either way. It was decent but unspectacular. This looks to continue that trend only MOAR!!!!
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Khaldun on December 05, 2013, 02:56:03 PM First one was meh. Not bad, not good. I liked Garfield's take on Peter Parker well enough. Really didn't like the attempt to make the mythos more complicated, any more than I like JMS's thing about Spider-Gods and all that. The trailer has some nice moments. Interestingly different take on the Osborns and on Sinister Six. Count me interested.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 05, 2013, 03:00:17 PM Spiderman Vs the robots.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 01:45:05 AM I enjoyed ASM more than I should have. It got a lot of things from the first boot more right and a lot of things were less right. Wildly.
However, where it really got better was 'Spider Man Fighting Shit', so it trundled along at a nicer pace. Also, Conners was really well done, I thought. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on December 06, 2013, 02:59:09 AM I thought everything had way too much of a CG look in the first one, and if anything this one looks even worse in that respect to me.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on December 06, 2013, 04:43:18 AM I can remember almost nothing about the last one.
I can't even remember who the villain was. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: kaid on December 06, 2013, 06:55:11 AM One can only watch so many spiderman/superman origin stories before they all sort of blend together.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 06:57:55 AM I can remember almost nothing about the last one. I can't even remember who the villain was. It was a giant fucking lizard. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on December 06, 2013, 09:28:42 AM Oh so it was. The only real memory I have is that they decided to go with mechanical web shooters.
It was not memorable is what I am saying. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: sickrubik on December 06, 2013, 10:49:08 AM Theres "not memorable" and then there's "did you sustain a concussion?"
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 03:04:57 PM Yeah. It was a giant fucking lizard dude.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on December 06, 2013, 03:15:26 PM Yeah. It was a giant fucking lizard dude. Are you sure you were not watching the porn parody? I don't remember any reptile sex in the movie. But then again, we just said it wasn't memorable.Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Samwise on December 06, 2013, 03:16:49 PM Yeah. It was a giant fucking lizard dude. Are you sure you were not watching the porn parody? I don't remember any reptile sex in the movie. But then again, we just said it wasn't memorable.(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40386/Macros/hmm.gif) Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ghambit on December 07, 2013, 09:04:03 AM (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/yawn1.gif)
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Threash on December 07, 2013, 07:14:09 PM Well i liked the first movie but couldn't remember of the top of my head who the villain was either. It would've come to me eventually though.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Tannhauser on December 08, 2013, 03:00:23 AM Looks like Oscorp is inventing Doc Ock's tentacles and the Vultures wings, nice easter eggs. Guess they are also responsible for Rhino and GG's suits. Also creating Electro. Oscorp in the business of mass producing super villains for, um, profit? So we're going to have three villains this time? Good, more villains ALWAYS works!
The guy playing Harry was the bad guy in Chronicles so that's interesting. Also appears Harry knows PP is Spiderman. Guess we know how THAT works out! Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Raguel on December 08, 2013, 03:10:58 PM I read somewhere that they are planning on having the Sinister Six in the third movie.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Sir T on December 08, 2013, 07:08:22 PM 6 villians is better than 3 dontchaknow.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 08, 2013, 07:28:21 PM I fully expect spiderman to have not learned from it's mistakes.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on February 25, 2014, 12:30:03 AM Watching the trailer for this I couldn't help think how dated it looks.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: sickrubik on February 25, 2014, 01:48:37 PM HEY GUYS! WE'RE GETTING ANNUAL SPIDER MAN MOVIES.
http://badassdigest.com/2014/02/25/green-goblin-seizes-sony-promises-to-overexpose-spider-man-franchise-to-dea/ :drill: Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on February 25, 2014, 01:56:05 PM Lame.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on February 25, 2014, 01:58:55 PM Quote the studio plans to begin releasing a Spider-Man universe movie every single year, probably beginning in 2016 with The Amazing Spider-Man 3. The other films in the series will be Venom and The Sinister Six Words fail me. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: HaemishM on February 25, 2014, 04:39:04 PM These movies will fail them too. :awesome_for_real:
Fuck a Venom movie right in its tiny, symbiotic earhole. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Tannhauser on February 25, 2014, 04:40:47 PM Good plan. The movies will suck so bad Sony will sell Spidey back to Marvel.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Fordel on February 26, 2014, 01:05:47 PM Sony is just going to keep making Spiderman movies till the end of time now, aren't they? :why_so_serious: Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: taolurker on March 13, 2014, 10:19:19 AM :ye_gods: This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on March 13, 2014, 11:51:13 AM Why ?
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on March 13, 2014, 12:04:20 PM Likely, Marvel and Sony will make a deal down the road where Sony gets a cut of any Spidey revenue for a long time and Marvel gets the rights back to all Sony characters. It is just a matter of time - I think it will happen when the rose starts to fade from the MCU and they need a big act to reignite the fires of fandom.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Fordel on March 13, 2014, 01:30:52 PM :ye_gods: This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A That looks like classic Spiderman to me. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Khaldun on March 13, 2014, 08:09:40 PM Waiting for Iceman and Firestar to show up.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: shiznitz on March 14, 2014, 11:17:10 AM Lindsay Lohan as Firestar for the cry.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on March 14, 2014, 11:19:37 AM :ye_gods: This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A That looks like classic Spiderman to me. Looks like a tired overexposed Spiderman to me. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Fordel on March 14, 2014, 12:55:56 PM So classic Spiderman then?
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on March 19, 2014, 07:29:07 AM :rimshot:
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: rk47 on April 13, 2014, 10:35:43 PM Electro is played by Jamie Foxx.
He gains his powers from an accident in Oscorp involving electric eels. Hahah. Fuckno. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2014, 01:22:53 AM Spider-Man is played by Andrew Garfield. He gains his powers from an accident in Oscorp involving Radioactive Spiders. Hahah. Fuckno. Your comments are slightly odd. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2014, 01:36:01 AM :ye_gods: This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A That looks like classic Spiderman to me. The CG looked really bad to me. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2014, 01:41:36 AM Man, it's like you all don't remember Nicholas Hammond.
The CGI is fine. Better every time they reboot. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on April 14, 2014, 05:13:59 AM Watching this and catching a glimpse of Spider-Man 3 on television, the advances in CGI are apparent. Electro was quoted by one of the production staff as a "cinematic opportunity" for visual effects because of his unique nature.
I expect this movie to be a bunch of wit and comic book moments without tackling any serious issues or acting. In other words, should be good fun. I thought it was interesting how they redid the "Spidey hits Rhino with a manhole cover" shot into something far more complicated in its execution. I had a problem with the river barrel sequence in The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug because of the high degree of physical implausibility in the action, but, for reasons because it's a comic book and Spider Man, I don't have the same reaction. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Fordel on April 14, 2014, 01:28:27 PM The thing with this series of Spiderman movies, they were made for all the wrong reasons. They exist so Sony can try to squeeze as much blood out of this stone as possible.
Yet, I don't hate them. I actually enjoyed the first remake pretty well. Maybe it was because my expectations were just so fucking low, but I watched the first one and went 'yea that was fun'. Unlike say, that fucking Green Lantern movie, where I demanded the odd 2 hours of my life back. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: rk47 on April 15, 2014, 02:30:33 AM Spider-Man is played by Andrew Garfield. He gains his powers from an accident in Oscorp involving Radioactive Spiders. Hahah. Fuckno. Your comments are slightly odd. Yes because it's not enough for people to gain power from industrial electric accidents It had to be mutated eels. Next up: Mutated Rhino. Followed with Mutated Scorpion. And Radiated Octopus. Not forgetting Vulture. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 02:45:16 AM It's not without precedent, is my point.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on April 15, 2014, 03:45:06 AM The CGI is fine. Better every time they reboot. :why_so_serious: The CGI is crap. Who Framed Roger Rabbit had more convincing animated characters interacting with the real world 25 years ago (not even using computer animation). Looking at that last clip that was posted, I see maybe 3-6 seconds of footage where I feel like there might actually be a human being in a Spider-man costume being filmed. I mean it's to the point where I don't feel like there's someone there even as a placeholder or in a motion capture suit or something. It's not quite Phantom Menace bad but it's Hobbit 2 bad. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 04:40:22 AM I'm not having this argument again with another Marvel movie. I hear it every time, yet somehow I still manage to enjoy the movies.
Possibly I'm not the intended audience for this particular offense. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on April 15, 2014, 05:07:58 AM I'm not having this argument again with another Marvel movie. I hear it every time, yet somehow I still manage to enjoy the movies. Really, you hear this argument with a lot of Marvel movies? Personally I find that most of the stuff they put out themselves has pretty good CGI where it's used, and it tends to be mixed in with a good amount of practical special effects. There are a few exceptions where maybe the CGI doesn't work as well, but usually only a couple bits per movie. Every trailer for Spider-man I've seen leaves me with the impression that in the majority of the action sequences Spider-man is going to be entirely CGI and Electro probably will be also. When I watch Iron Man, even during the action scenes they manage to convince me RDJ is there inside that suit. When I'm watching these trailers for Spider-man I feel like Andrew Garfield is playing Peter Parker and doing voice-over work for Spider-man. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: SurfD on April 15, 2014, 05:15:25 AM You do realise that no living human being could "realistically" do mo-cap work for Spider-Man, right? I mean, half his gig is that he is so insanely agile and flexible that it practically defies logic. Combine that with the fact that he does crazy gymnastic shit while sticking to the sides of buildings and whirling through the air on webs, and even an idoit would be able to tell that a "completely real" Spider-Man would be so painful and immersion breaking to watch it wouldn't even be funny.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Khaldun on April 15, 2014, 07:00:14 AM Been trying to think about what bugs me about the clips--what's triggering my sense that it's not quite right--and I think part of it is the color palette, particularly on Spider-Man's suit, in relationship to the light. It just doesn't look physical--it looks like a comic-book panel. That might be okay if they actually went all the way there--abandoned CGI faux-realism and did something that was visually (not narratively) more like the Speed Racer film. But instead it just feels like a mistake--a bad bit of overtuning or oversaturation.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 07:01:23 AM I'm not having this argument again with another Marvel movie. I hear it every time, yet somehow I still manage to enjoy the movies. Really, you hear this argument with a lot of Marvel movies? Personally I find that most of the stuff they put out themselves has pretty good CGI where it's used, and it tends to be mixed in with a good amount of practical special effects. There are a few exceptions where maybe the CGI doesn't work as well, but usually only a couple bits per movie. Every trailer for Spider-man I've seen leaves me with the impression that in the majority of the action sequences Spider-man is going to be entirely CGI and Electro probably will be also. When I watch Iron Man, even during the action scenes they manage to convince me RDJ is there inside that suit. When I'm watching these trailers for Spider-man I feel like Andrew Garfield is playing Peter Parker and doing voice-over work for Spider-man. And this is what I've heard every time another Spider Man movies comes out. It's a reasonable criticism on the face of it, but as SurfD points out, it kinda meanders into nitpicking and puppy kicking territory. Again, Nicholas Hammond. I'm ok with this film since it's not some overweight guy swinging obviously on a rope or climbing a wall with a wire-belt obviously attached. At least this time around the Actor playing Spider-man and Parker can actually, you know, act like them. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 07:02:22 AM it looks like a comic-book panel. I... I just don't know what to do with you people. :uhrr: :ye_gods: :heartbreak: Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Khaldun on April 15, 2014, 08:00:18 AM Like I said, that would be groovy IF that's what the film was trying to do throughout. I just don't like the mix-and-match of everyday cinematography, CGI 'realism' and CGI 'comic-book'. If they're going to go comic-book, go ALL THE WAY comic-book.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on April 15, 2014, 11:37:48 AM You do realise that no living human being could "realistically" do mo-cap work for Spider-Man, right? I mean, half his gig is that he is so insanely agile and flexible that it practically defies logic. I realize that. I also realize that human beings can't fly, you can't actually shoot or stab actors when you're filming a movie, it's not possible to fly an X-Wing through a trench in the Death Star, and that we can't bring back Dinosaurs to film the next Jurassic Park movie. The job of special effects (and Directing/Cinematography) is to make me actually buy into whatever is happening on screen even when I know it clearly can't actually be happening. It's like watching a magic act. I know what I'm seeing is an illusion so to speak, but I'd still get more enjoyment out of someone doing tricks I can't figure out rather than being able to see the strings and trap doors through the whole show. I do not buy into Spider-man in the same way I couldn't get into a lot of the action sequences in the last Hobbit movie, especially when Legolas and the elf chick were involved. To me, they might as well just a throw in full-on animated sequences is the movie while running a disclaimer at the bottom saying "Sorry, we couldn't figure out a way to shoot this scene". Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on April 15, 2014, 12:56:52 PM Like I said, that would be groovy IF that's what the film was trying to do throughout. I just don't like the mix-and-match of everyday cinematography, CGI 'realism' and CGI 'comic-book'. If they're going to go comic-book, go ALL THE WAY comic-book. Like Sin City, or a Marvel Animatic? What do you mean by "ALL THE WAY" Comic Book? I expect the film, when I witness it, not to have any jarring elements when everything's mixed together. A trailer pulling from different points of the movie and mish-mashing them together is going to give a different impression from the finished work. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on April 15, 2014, 03:39:02 PM Mostly I want the film not to be boring enough for this discussion to come up.
Disclaimer : I haven't seen this. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Margalis on April 15, 2014, 05:58:29 PM I do not buy into Spider-man in the same way I couldn't get into a lot of the action sequences in the last Hobbit movie, especially when Legolas and the elf chick were involved. To me, they might as well just a throw in full-on animated sequences is the movie while running a disclaimer at the bottom saying "Sorry, we couldn't figure out a way to shoot this scene". The movement is wrong. The human eye is very perceptive of movement and how living creatures, especially other humans, move. Spider-Man is supposed to be agile as are LOTR Elves, but the way that they move comes off more as plain wrong than superhuman. Aliens and dinosaurs and things like that work better because we don't have a working reference. Nobody knows exactly what a dinosaur walking around should look like, but we all know what a guy sliding down a thing or swinging on a rope should look like. This is a huge problem for animation in both movies and games, and usually the main reason why things don't look convincing. Basically CGI humans doing somewhat human-ish things is hard. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 16, 2014, 05:01:38 AM Mostly I want the film not to be boring enough for this discussion to come up. Disclaimer : I haven't seen this. Yuuuuppp. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lantyssa on April 16, 2014, 06:20:08 AM Spiderman doesn't really qualify as human anymore. He's a humanoid spider. It should look wrong.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on April 16, 2014, 06:31:12 AM All I know is that ASM 1 got slated for it before it was released by the usual suspects and then they shut up once they saw the film.
And the movement they managed in ASM1 was extremely well done; he acted like a fucking spider. The school hallway scenes where he was crawling all over the lizard and webbing him were awesome. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on April 16, 2014, 07:06:05 AM Help me understand something. Is this thread now about speculation and personal wagering about the film's quality and merit based both on the limited information available and using historical reference to prior films and talent ... in order to pass the time until the film's release?
Like, is the arm-chair analysis being posted with the intent to sound off or to influence the subjective taste of others? Both? Neither? Pretend I'm Brick Tamland. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lantyssa on April 16, 2014, 07:36:20 AM Some people don't love Lamp.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on April 16, 2014, 09:52:47 AM Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on April 16, 2014, 12:29:04 PM Help me understand something. Is this thread now about speculation and personal wagering about the film's quality and merit based both on the limited information available and using historical reference to prior films and talent ... in order to pass the time until the film's release? Like, is the arm-chair analysis being posted with the intent to sound off or to influence the subjective taste of others? Both? Neither? Pretend I'm Brick Tamland. The trailers contain CGI that I don't like the look of. I tend to be of the opinion the CGI hasn't advanced to the point that some directors think it has, in that when I see an all CGI character it almost invariably breaks my suspension of disbelief. I used these trailers as a springboard for a conversation about that. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Margalis on April 16, 2014, 03:31:52 PM Spiderman doesn't really qualify as human anymore. He's a humanoid spider. It should look wrong. He's a spideroid human! Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Tannhauser on April 16, 2014, 03:51:53 PM "He's more spider than man now, twisted and evil."
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on April 17, 2014, 03:42:02 PM Sony thinks ASM 2 will rival the Avengers in total box office: http://variety.com/2014/film/news/spider-man-2-facing-formidable-foes-at-foreign-box-office-1201157653/# (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/spider-man-2-facing-formidable-foes-at-foreign-box-office-1201157653/#)
At first blush it seems ridiculous, but if you look at the movies based upon Marvel products and look at their box office adjusted for inflation, You get Avengers, Spider--Man I, Iron Man, Spidey 3, Spidey 2, Men in Black, and then Amazing Spiderman...4 of the top 7 are Spidey. Adjusted up to present value dollars, all of those films exceeded about $800,000,000 in today's dollars - and Avengers would be about $1.63 billion in today dollars. Personally, I hope it 'flops' and ends up at global $500,000,000 or so - or about 60% of ASM I. Considering they spent $400,000 on the movie and marketing... I'm betting if it did, Marvel and Sony would start talking numbers to figure out how to get Spidey into the main Marvel continuity. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2014, 04:05:23 PM There is no way in hell this beats the avengers in world wide sales. To think otherwise is either blatant lying or woeful stupidity.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Trippy on April 17, 2014, 04:20:17 PM The article just says they have a goal of $1 billion which is quite a bit short of The Avengers ($1.5b) but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. That would be better than all the earlier Spider-Man movies, though (non-adjusted dollars).
(http://i.imgur.com/BtbQvr0.jpg) Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2014, 04:55:03 PM Not on that chart is the last movie The Amazing Spider-Man
Quote Worldwide: $752,216,557 according to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman4.htm Which puts it below the Spiderman from 2002. So the estimates of beating The Avengers or even coming close is still ludicrous. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Trippy on April 17, 2014, 04:56:32 PM It is on the chart -- it's between The Avengers and Iron Man 3 (you have to look at the table below the bars).
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2014, 04:58:11 PM My bad it does seem to be there and I am terrible at reading charts.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Trippy on April 17, 2014, 05:01:03 PM It's not a very well done chart.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on April 17, 2014, 05:18:08 PM Look at the Iron Man films... they grow in sequels. What they expect is to grow like IM 3 did. I do not see it taking place, but they're betting a lot on the idea Spidey can support an Avengers level of attention.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Tannhauser on April 17, 2014, 08:05:53 PM Wow look at im3. Avenger s bump?
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Margalis on April 17, 2014, 08:12:17 PM These WW numbers are heavily influenced by where and how these movies are released internationally.
IM had different scenes for certain regions, was heavily promoted in places like China, has a 4D version, etc. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on April 18, 2014, 02:07:17 AM Wow look at im3. Avenger s bump? Partly due to the Avengers. It's also the first Iron Man movie in 3D, as well as the fact that the World Wide market has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years. If you look back, IM1 made $318mil domestic and $266mil foreign. IM2 was roughly equal domestic and foreign with $312/$311 respectively. IM3's foreign gross was twice that of the domestic with $409mil domestic, $806mil foreign. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on April 19, 2014, 05:01:58 AM I'd really like to see how much of the gain over time is down to the industry screwing more money out of people for shit like 3d, how much is growth/shrinkage of theatre attendance, and how much is left as attributable to rise in popularity of the subject and to Marvel's marketing.
Those numbers should all be available, but lazy journalism is easier ofc. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on April 19, 2014, 07:03:56 AM You're kidding, right? Lazy journalism?
It sounds like it would take a team of statisticians and industry analysts obtaining hard-to-acquire metrics and outputting something like what you're asking for. How could these numbers be determined? 1. What percentage of ticket sales can be attributed to the expenditure of this film's marketing? 2. What is the estimated potential audience in each regional market along an axis of time? (And how many causal factors influence *this* metric?) 3. What is the estimated population of human beings interested in Marvel entertainment products? (Broken down by age group most significantly?) Now, some numbers could be readily available, such as: 1. What percentage of gross was attributed to special format presentations? 2. What was the amount spent on marketing? 3. How did the marketing budget compare to ticket sales gross? (Is there any observable correlation between a film's gross and the amount spent on its marketing?) What the chart tells me is that there is a clear increase in the gross revenue of Marvel entertainment products as they are introduced and invested in (for many reasons including quality of product), films that don't build on previous iterations won't generate as much revenue as arc-based films, the start of an arc won't generate as much revenue as the end of one, and, most importantly, Punisher films should be avoided at all costs. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on April 23, 2014, 09:41:10 AM To be honest, I don't put much faith in statistics as a journalistic tool. People choose the numbers that best support their message rather than selecting the message based upon the numbers.
Regardless, we'll have to wait and see. I expect ASM 2 to end up ~$900 Worldwide. I hope for less, because I do not like the ASM universe and I'd much rather see Sony move closer to a position where they are willing to return the character to Marvel. Even though there are some really good things about the ASM Spidey, I think Marvel would do it better while being truer to the character - and I think the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe would benefit from having the rogues gallery from Spider-man available to them. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Cyrrex on April 28, 2014, 09:54:29 AM So none of you have seen this yet? Is it not out in the US yet? I saw it over here a few days ago with the kids. We liked it overall. There are a couple of things about it that kind of bug me. I won't got into details yet, even with spoilers. Still, it's a reasonably good entry in the spiderman ledger of films.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on April 28, 2014, 10:11:56 AM I'll be waiting till it shows up on tv.
Apart from not being very inspired by the trailers, there is such a thing as too many comic book films. Also interested to know what people who've actually seen it think though. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Merusk on April 28, 2014, 10:18:01 AM Doesn't come out in the US until this Friday
Apart from not being very inspired by the trailers, there is such a thing as too many comic book films. This. We didn't bother with Thor 2 or Captain America 2 and won't bother with this in the theater. When it's on streaming I'll see it. I'm tired of Comics movies. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on April 28, 2014, 10:29:58 AM I think the beauty of modern comic action movies are that they are not all so similar that we need to treat them like one fills the void of the other. Cap II and Thor II are very different action films... I would not brush them aside unless you just don't like action movies.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Merusk on April 28, 2014, 10:59:36 AM You're the resident comic fanboy so your word is suspect in the first place. However, the problem is we're tired of costumed super people dealing with costumed super people problems. Guess what, they fit that bill.
If there had been as many giant monster and evil fairy witch movies in the last 14 years as costumed men, I'd be saying the same thing about them. That's not the case so we'll be going to see Godzilla and Maleficent instead of Marvel property movie #24. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Nevermore on April 28, 2014, 12:33:25 PM I didn't like Cap 1 but I got talked into seeing Cap 2 and ended up really liking it. I won't touch Spider-Man 2 with a 10 foot pole, though.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Evildrider on April 28, 2014, 02:05:15 PM If I go to see a superhero movie nowadays, depends on who is making them. At this point I at least know I haven't been disappointed with the MCU. The DC stuff and the other Marvel movies are basically wait to watch at home. I didn't like the last Spider-Man too much and this one hasn't given me a reason to see this sequel. No matter how much I want to do naughty things to Emma Stone.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Hoax on April 29, 2014, 12:50:02 PM Yeah I can def understand comic book movie fatigue. My for sure big summer movies in theater are Gaurdians, Edge of Tomorrow and Godzilla.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Margalis on April 29, 2014, 08:22:35 PM I think the beauty of modern comic action movies are that they are not all so similar that we need to treat them like one fills the void of the other. They are all pretty much the same movie, especially tonally. They all have the Joss Whedon style of drama, by which I mean a patina of drama that isn't actually dramatic or interesting. I look forward to the movies that are straight up comedies. I would look forward to movies that are about real human drama, but I doubt we'll get any of those. The Marvel movies are pretty good for what they are, but what they are exists in a pretty narrow range. They are all light adventure romps with quips and comedic elements and no real stakes. I liked Thor 2 well enough but it's not like I give a shit that his mother dies or care about the Thor / Jane relationship, I like it because a hammer flies for 10,000 miles then Thor catches it and slams it into a dude's face. Stylistically these movies could diverge a lot more than they do. A lot of the tonal similarity is that they all look pretty similar, with some parts of Captain America 1 being the only exception I can think of. Even just a more diverse color palette across movies would help a lot. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Cyrrex on April 29, 2014, 10:27:27 PM Well, it is hard to get into the Thor/Jane relationship when Sif is like RIGHT THERE. I love me some Natalie Portman, but god damn. And then the nerdy scientist girl played by what's-her-face. There simply isn't enough boner to go around.
The Marvel stuff is all generally really good, as far as I am concerned. But we are probably getting spoiled with way too much of it. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: SurfD on April 29, 2014, 10:27:59 PM Yeah I can def understand comic book movie fatigue. My for sure big summer movies in theater are Gaurdians, Edge of Tomorrow and Godzilla. I am a bit iffy on Edge. Having read the first 8 or so chapters of the scanlated manga / graphic novel that was made based on the book, I just really cant picture the movie as a Tom Cruise vehicle. The main character really should have been someone much younger and less well known. It still has potential to be good, but I really get the feeling that the movie is essentially only takeing the bare bones premise of the Book / Manga and doing its own story with it.Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on April 30, 2014, 08:45:26 AM You're the resident comic fanboy ... What? I like the movies, and read comics as a kid, but have limited comic reading since 1991 or so...Quote ...so your word is suspect in the first place. However, the problem is we're tired of costumed super people dealing with costumed super people problems. Guess what, they fit that bill. There is only so much variation in Big Monster movies... but there is far more variation in comic hero movies. If you're going to tell me Dark Knight was as similar to Captain America I or Spider-Man I as any two giant monster movies, I'll have to laugh.If there had been as many giant monster and evil fairy witch movies in the last 14 years as costumed men, I'd be saying the same thing about them. That's not the case so we'll be going to see Godzilla and Maleficent instead of Marvel property movie #24. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 30, 2014, 12:48:36 PM Whole lot of variation too. One guy dresses like bat, one guy dresses like a spider and another dresses like a flag. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ghambit on May 01, 2014, 11:18:03 PM Just got out. Bulletpoints:
Qualifier: I saw it in a brand new RPX theatre. Soooo, that helps. Also, I do agree about comic burnout. Had this movie came out before Cap2 I'd say it'd do very very well, but as good as I thought it was it's still a bit of the same ol' same ol'. Kinda funny how that works. Anyways, great movie to see especially with the kids, even though it is by far the most heavy-hearted Marvel movie of them all. They dont pull a lot of punches in this one, similar to the 1st but amped up even more. I'm sure most of you will hate it, but whatevs. I liked it much like I liked the 1st ASM - dunno what it is.... just a personal thing I guess. They just resonate with me more. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Cyrrex on May 01, 2014, 11:43:57 PM I liked it for many of the same reasons you listed. I should also add that the list of movies I dislike in which Emma Stone has a part is totally empty. It's strange, because she isn't super good looking in the traditional sense, but she has a stupid amount of charisma. I also agree that this version of Spiderman is better than the Toby version.
Now that it has had it's release, I will spoiler the things the bugged me: The effects in the movie were top notch. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on May 02, 2014, 12:26:31 AM I disagree with just about everything you guys said.
Edit: To elaborate since I'm home now and not just posting on a phone: - The stuff about Peter's parents in this movie and the last one is just unnecessary. It needlessly complicates his origin and I feel like even appearing only in flashbacks and video footage, his dad got more screen time than Aunt May which seems odd. - Speaking of Aunt May not getting much screen time, this movie wastes most of the fairly talented cast such as the aforementioned Sally Field, Felicity Jones, and Paul Giamatti who is given very little to work with. Dane DeHaan does a good Harry Osborn, but good God is his Green Goblin horrible. - And on the subject of characters that start off interesting before going insane and turning into villains, that brings us to Electro. Jamie Foxx is mildly amusing as Max Dillon, but after he goes bad he stops being an actual character anymore. - Also there's a moment when the switch in his head finally flips to villain and his inner monologue in that scene becomes part of the background music because Marc Webb just can't keep his music video directing career separate and it comes off really fucking cheesy. It was cute when he did that sequence with the Hall & Oates song in (500) Days of Summer but he doesn't need to integrate a music video into every movie he directs. - Some of the CG in the movie is even worse than what was shown in the trailers. The last fight between Spider-man and Electro has a number of horribly fake looking parts to it. - Peter is unreasonably a dick when it comes to helping out Harry. Garfield is ok, and Stone is good, and their relationship is generally well done although I would think that most women would get a bit creeped out when their on again, off again boyfriend admits to frequently stalking them. Raimi's Spider-man movies struggled with the ralationship stuff so in that respect the ASM movies are better. As a whole though, I still think Raimi's Spider-man 2 was the best out of any of the Spider-man movies, and if I could edit his first Spider-man down by 20 minutes or so for pacing, and in particular delete Peter's monologue to MJ about what he "told Spider-man about her", it would be far and away better than both ASM's also. As it is I'd still rather watch it than either ASM movie. So overall if this was a romantic movie staring Garfield and Stone it might have been pretty good. As a Spider-man movie, it's a bit crap. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on May 04, 2014, 05:24:05 PM I'm with Velorath here. I just got out of seeing the full thing and was very disappointed. I'd already seen about 20 minutes of the second act... and ugh.
I thought all of the villains were eye-rollingly annoying. They didn't use the comic book stories to inform the work - they tried to taunft the audience with them. They west Fields and make bad use of her... they make her into a student nurse that is running the ER, apparently? What? Electro was a marginally acceptable representation of the villain visually, but the character was awful. There was nothing redeeming about the implementation of the Green Goblin or the Rhino. If I were to rank the 5 SM movies of the recent past, they'd all be on a downward decline with the exception of SM III, which is still the worst of the 5 movies. The only thing they have very, very right in this version is the Spider-man persona and dialogue - but it is diminished by the horrible and inconsistent motivations and direction. And that confusing 30 seconds of the next X-men movie with no explanation is just misleading and rude. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: SurfD on May 04, 2014, 07:13:41 PM Yeah, that whole X-Men teaser scene thrown in the middle of the credits made me do a big WTF double take. I mean, how much do you think that Fox payed Sony for the rights to stick that in there? Hell, we didnt even get any kind of teaser bit for ASM 3 like we did at the end of ASM 1, instead we get a random 1 minute X-men snippet. How the hell does that even make sense.....
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Velorath on May 04, 2014, 07:31:37 PM Yeah, that whole X-Men teaser scene thrown in the middle of the credits made me do a big WTF double take. I mean, how much do you think that Fox payed Sony for the rights to stick that in there? Hell, we didnt even get any kind of teaser bit for ASM 3 like we did at the end of ASM 1, instead we get a random 1 minute X-men snippet. How the hell does that even make sense..... Fox didn't pay Sony. It was part of a deal for free advertising put together when Sony hired Marc Webb who was under contract for Fox at the time. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on May 05, 2014, 08:52:27 AM I know AICN is not respected here, but I pretty much agree with the Quint review of the film... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67172 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67172) ... with the exception of his approval of Giamatti as Rhino. Quite a waste. I found all villains to have been badly bumbled with poor direction putting them over the top (I'm betting there was strong pressure to be like Marvel/Disney and not be afraid to be more comic book-like ... but the people in charge did not know how to pull that off). If you're going to go so far out there as to have Max be a man made of electricity, you need to find a better way to do the Rhino than turning it into the nightmare some furry had after seeing Pacific Rim. I'd have still been critical of a 'Were-rhino' approach or a man in a rubber suit, but it would have been better than a mecha-battle armor designed to look like a Rhino for no good reason.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ghambit on May 05, 2014, 09:09:01 AM A lot of the qualms I see have to do with suspension of comic-book disbelief. ASM is to Marvel as Abrams' Trek is to TOS. Look at it that way. It's meant to be a caricature; a semi-artistic foray if you will. To that end, I quite enjoy them. Note: I dont particularly like Abrams' Trek. :oh_i_see:
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on May 05, 2014, 04:42:40 PM The emotional core the script explored seemed to be about how characters made what appeared to be an unloving choice (deciding what's best for the other without regard to their choice) in order to protect or help the other in a way that wasn't immediately apparent.
I was noticeably bothered that Norman Osborn supposedly had decades before the illness progressed to a point that left him dead, while they made it seem Harry had weeks and that the disease only asserted itself shortly before his return. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 05, 2014, 06:09:06 PM Everything in ASM2 can be boiled down to:
Why....? Because reasons. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: SurfD on May 05, 2014, 06:18:11 PM I was noticeably bothered that Norman Osborn supposedly had decades before the illness progressed to a point that left him dead, while they made it seem Harry had weeks and that the disease only asserted itself shortly before his return. Yeah, that had more to do with the incredibly poor job the film did at showing the passage of time. I mean, fuck, from what I could tell after sitting back and thinking about it, the lion's share of the movie takes place over at least half a year or more: Harry comes back shortly after Gwen and Peter "split" and Peter has been spending at least a few months shadowing her up to the climactic final "major" fight. They just do a really shit job of showing that time passing. Then there is another timelapse of about 5 months before the "return" of Spiderman to new-york and the Rhino scene.Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on May 06, 2014, 01:27:12 AM Everything in ASM2 can be boiled down to: Why....? Because reasons. Yeah! :awesome_for_real: There was a loose coherency to the entire work. At times the rapid pace and energy was great (interactions between Peter and Gwen), but other times things move so fast that if you stopped and thought about what and why things were happening, it doesn't hold up. I agree with points made about how there was too much going on -- Green Goblin almost felt shoe-horned into the piece just so Then there is another timelapse of about 5 months before the "return" of Spiderman to new-york and the Rhino scene. That scene ... so many issues with it. Did the kid's choice make sense in terms of the script? I thought, with regards to the narrative, that it was similar to the grounds of Gwen's choice (and setting up Peter making that same choice), but unlike Gwen knowing and accepting the risks of her decisions (not having it made for her), the kid acted on a naive interpretation that would get him killed. Gwen had a purpose for putting herself in harm's way, the kid was throwing his life away. Rhino fired at least one volley *past* the kid to suppress the police so Rhino & kid could have their moment! ("Why don't the police just grab the kid?" "Because SUPPRESSING FIREEEEE!!" "Why didn't that cause the kid to absolutely shit his pants from the physical response alone?!") But it was cool, am I right? Guys? Where you going? Thought it interesting that Peter made the same choice as his father with Harry and attempted to do with Gwen. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: jgsugden on May 06, 2014, 08:15:51 AM If you were rating the modern films based on Marvel (Spideys, X-Men, Avengers/MCU, Punishers, Blades, etc...) from the past 15 or so years, where would this movie fall?
The good things the two leads do pull it up from the bottom of the bottom tiers, but I'd say it rivals Spidey 3 for the worst Spidey movie and it doesn't come close to the middle tiers. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: MediumHigh on May 07, 2014, 05:53:47 AM This movie was garbage. Not even the special effects could save it from souring me to anything spider-man coming out from that studio. I already protested amazing spider-man 1 but, god could this at least be 4 in the scale of bad to good? Can I at least be able to turn my brain off and enjoy the special effects? Nope for every 2 seconds of satisfaction you get 1 hour of brain draining, mind numbing, soul sucking agony starting with the horrible indie hipster shit that belongs in the used CD's trashed bin of dated and grossly inappropriate soundtrack. The lack of drama or tension is this movie is astounding as the movie serves extra large slices of ham for everyone except gwen stacy..... who could have left the plot earlier. Her arc does shit. Her break up does shit. Her I'm putting this at batman forever level bad. This is a warning label to stop giving these fuckwitts money so Marvel/Disney can purchase the spider-man movie license. As it stands now this franchise is being used to funnel drug money.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on May 16, 2014, 05:22:46 PM Speaking of not speaking about this: Box Office numbers at 14 days of release (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=amazingspiderman2.htm) show Spider-Man's foreign gross at 80% (400mil) of the full run of the first, while it is still 100 million off domestically. 90 mil opening weekend versus 60 mil of the first.
So it looks like it'll pull down more money than its predecessor on the strength of foreign markets, but the big picture is the franchise as a whole might be wearing thin. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3837&p=.htm) Quote Compared to other outings in the Spider-Man series, though, this is a disappointing debut. It's tough to compare this to the first Amazing Spider-Man, which opened on a Tuesday ahead of the Fourth of July weekend. The best comparable titles are the first and third movie in Sam Raimi's original trilogy, which also debuted on the first weekend of May. Those opened to $114.8 million and $151.1 million, respectively, with much lower average ticket prices and no 3D premiums. Foreign gross of the original Spider-Man series sat around 50/50 domestic / gross, with SM3 at 40/60. The ratio for ASM2 is 25/75. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Merusk on May 16, 2014, 08:20:37 PM That guy's drawing the wrong conclusion. He's right when he said that the movies needed to be "amazing" so soon after the Rami pictures and they weren't. That's probably the bigger reason for the failure.
As for the numbers, ignore the F/D ratio of the originals. They're 14 years old now and the world has changed a ton. That ratio is reflected in almost all movies these days. That's why you're seeing the shift in things that appeal to more than just Americans and a HELL of a lot less "go Team America!" than even 10 years ago. Lots of wealthy people in other countries that were 3rd world 15 years ago are going to the movies today. I read an article that this is why GI Joe, when it was released, was an International force, not a US one. Avengers: 41D/ 59F CA2: 35D/ 64F Rio 2: 27D/ 73F 300 2: 32D/ 68 F Robocop: 24D/ 75F Jack Ryan: 38D/ 62F Need for Speed: 21D/ 79F Transcendence: 34D/ 66F Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Maven on May 16, 2014, 09:31:57 PM That was why I included those numbers -- to show the trend of foreign gross's increasing importance. I don't know if I can look at domestic-only numbers now when people talk about "Who's King At The Box Office?"
The influence of business on creative products like you mentioned with G.I. Joe is one of those realities of movie-making and any multidisciplinary projects I've come to accept. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Evildrider on July 23, 2014, 01:23:59 PM So the new plan to keep the Spiderman license is to just put the next movie in 2018.
Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Riggswolfe on July 23, 2014, 03:37:27 PM I was just coming here to post about that and the Sinister Six movie being written and directed by Drew Goddard. (Which is at least semi-hopeful but I bet Joss Whedon called him and teased him. "Hey, working for Sony on their shitty Spider Man spin-off huh? Cool. Oh, I've got to go, Avengers 2 won't direct itself after all!" )
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/68104 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/68104) Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: eldaec on January 11, 2015, 03:18:47 AM I finally saw this last night.
Was pretty dull. And a great many things made no sense. Also the CGI was really bad. But was better than ASM1 and strangely refreshing to watch a comic book film that didn't follow quite the same rigid structure of the MCU and didn't have a wink to the other films or a comic book easter egg every ten minutes. Garfield was much better than I remember him being in ASM1. By the end I was probably more interested in Sony Spiderman than I was at the start. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: MediumHigh on January 20, 2015, 02:08:16 PM I finally saw this last night. Was pretty dull. And a great many things made no sense. Also the CGI was really bad. But was better than ASM1 and strangely refreshing to watch a comic book film that didn't follow quite the same rigid structure of the MCU and didn't have a wink to the other films or a comic book easter egg every ten minutes. Garfield was much better than I remember him being in ASM1. By the end I was probably more interested in Sony Spiderman than I was at the start. Wow this movie was trash and I nearly hurled popcorn at the screen by the end of that shit show. To say ASM1, a movie I still refuse to sit down and watch, was worse.... dear god. Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Post by: Ironwood on January 20, 2015, 04:17:30 PM Just to be clear, ASM1 was NOT worse than ASM2.
ASM2 was a hell of a lot worse, mostly because it tried to answer the only hinted at retarded questions in the first one. The answers ? More and deeper retardery. GRIMDARK. WHOOOOOoooo. |