The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Yeah, I definitely can't argue with THAT!

 

I enjoyed the first in 3D, but I went in with low expectations, so that surely helped. I thought the 3D scenes of him flying around the city were very cool. I don't think it would have been nearly as much fun in 2D.

 

Agree to disagree. Neither film was amazing, but ASM was at least OK. It suffered due to a super lame villain. It was pretty good until The Lizard came into the picture. It was all down hill from there. X-Men: First Class was simply horrible in my opinion. I was a fan of the original trilogy and am glad that they are bringing back some of the original cast for Days of Future Past.

 

While I'm looking forward to that one, the problem with Days of Future Past is that it's already overbudget to the point where it could literally take $600M just to break even on it:

http://screenrant.com/x-men-days-of-future-past-budget/

I would say the industry is looking hard at these superhero movies and wondering how long the trend can last. The biggest film of 2012 was Avengers; the second-biggest film of 2013 was Iron Man 3; you have to wonder if Marvel will capture it again this year. If it's between Spiderman and X-Men, you figure they win either way -- although in neither case does the studio own all of the grosses from the films.

 

I think Guardians Of The Galaxy will be the real Marvel test this summer. Lesser-known franchise, more comical in tone than what we've seen from them thus far, opening in the late summer (Aug 1st) during the time frame where some people may be suffering from CGI-burnout. It it's a huge hit then I would say they are bullet-proof for the foreseeable future.

One thing I will say about Guardians Of The Galaxy is that I'm looking forward to it more than any other superhero property this year, specifically because it IS different.

 

Sure, but I thought we were talking about highest grossing, not the most profitable film...

If some of the films based on the individual heroes don't improve, I suspect fatigue will eventually set in. I'm hoping the new Captain American film is great, but I thought the last few individual outings were less than impressive (and there still hasn't been a solo Hulk installment worth a rip).

Marvel's The Avengers was a peak that no studio should realistically hope to reach often. The films leading into the movie stoked the fire, but most importantly, the film was actually excellent, nailing everything it needed to impress both the fan base and yet stand well on its own.

And you're right - Marvel wins regardless. Heck, unless it ends up being terrible, I suspect even Guardians of the Galaxy's performance will surprise some; the trailer certainly hit the tone it needed to project...

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

Yes, very true. And ya gotta love Rocket Raccoon...

 

another one on the list! Cool beans...

 

And to a lesser degree, Michael Fassbender has a higher profile now, though I'd hesitate to call him a box office draw.

 

Andrew Garfield is a fine actor and comes across as a nice guy to me. (Unlike Tobey Maguire, ironically, who is apparently rather unpleasant in real life.) I think the douchiness of his Peter Parker comes from the writing -- the character was misconceived as an angry brat in this version and it was off putting.

 

The key to me is getting Peter Parker right, and I'm not convinced that either Garfield or Maguire is exactly that guy. Nerdy but not unemotional, withdrawn but heroic, a misfit but also snarky, attractive but not conventionally handsome... that's a tough casting call. And they really needed somebody who could pass for 17-18. Garfield was 29 when he started playing Spiderman, which I think is way older than the character should be. I'll say this: he does play the role with a convincing New York accent, which is something mumble-mouthed Maguire didn't do.

I have been told by somebody on the set that Maguire was quick to want to endlessly debate director Sam Raimi on every minute detail of what the character was doing or saying in many scenes. On the one hand, the crew rolled their eyes while people stood around, waiting to actually get the scene shot; on the other, everybody probably made far more money because of the (unnecessary) overtime.

One thing I think they did very well in the recent Spiderman reboot are the flying sequences, which really are spectacular. One critic observed, "it's as if they tied a GoPro camera to Spiderman's head and just used that during the movie."

 

I may be in the minority, but I'm hoping that someday down the road, perhaps after this reboot series has run its course, Marvel has the courage to take the Spiderman film franchise in the brave new direction of the Ultimate Spiderman comic books by killing off Peter Parker and replacing him with Miles Morales. It would be interesting, but I don't that a major motion picture studio would be willing to take that risk.

 

so who would you have?

 

I'd pick an unknown, preferably somebody younger than 20. And the key is somebody who melds a little closer with the comic book character. At one time, I was convinced the kid who was in the Percy Jackson films, Logan Lerman, was pretty close to Peter Parker, but after seeing the film, it was clear his acting chops weren't quite up to it. But he's almost ten years younger than Garfield.

 

I enjoyed Garfield, but then again I also liked Maguire...
Garfield has the edge for me.

 

Man, this final trailer is insane. I bet 3D will be the way to go for this one.

 

That will be stunning in IMAX 3D. I am not really a fan of Garfield, nor do I really like Stone in this role that much, but visually this one looks very promising.

 

Yeah, it looks great, actors seem fine, but I got a very strong 'been there, done that' reaction to the trailer. Looks like the same movie as the last one, which wasn't appreciably different from the Tobey movies, and all of these Marvel movies seem to be coming out of the same big budget cookie cutter.

 

I hear you but this is a lot to ask of an audience. Almost borders on the too self important side. Thankfully the folks who make the Bond films respect their audiences and their wallets more. They provide entertainment with an established pop character and for better/worse tell new stories.

 

Lerman was rumored as a possible Peter/Spidey at one point...

 

I'm rather split, actually; Tobey was a better Peter and Andrew is a better Spider-Man.

 

I coulda sworn I posted that sometime back...

I actually think Garfield does a very good job, and I'll say this for him: he avidly read the comics as a kid, he's a very good actor, and they love him on the set -- he causes zero problems (so far). Maguire was quite a handful.

I noticed that they're muffling the sound of "Spiderman's" voice in the trailer, so they're trying to simulate the sound of somebody talking under a cloth mask, which I thought was interesting. I don't remember them doing that before.

BTW, many fans have noted that in the brief shots of the Oscorp "evil science lab," you can see prototypes of Doc Ock's tentacles and The Vulture's wings among other Spiderman villains to come. My favorite was Mysterio, the stage magician-turned-villain, but I'm not sure how they'd depict him in the movies or if it'd have any mass appeal. Electro and Green Goblin are much bigger villains in terms of visuals.

 

The actor who plays Harry Osborne reminds me of a young Leonardo DiCaprio. He appeared in the excellent The Place Beyond the Pines.

 

Yeah, Dane DeHaan was also the crazy "teenager from hell" in the recent film Chronicle, where I thought he was very good as the geek who goes nuts with his new-found alien powers.

 

Gonna stick with#'s 1, 2 & 3 of the "Tobey" series.


Evan