Concerning the movie rights and the villain situation
ironclad Send a noteboard - 04/05/2014 05:26:28 PM
View original post
That being said, the film is really entertaining, sometimes silly, sometimes sad, but never too awfully exciting.
You forgot overly long, with a kind of Saving-Private-Ryan drag between the excellent opening and closing fight scenes. Also, the seasonal mourning shot. Anything "Twilight" has already done is something you should be pretty confident about leaving on the cutting room floor. True, I don't want the times of 90 minutes blockbusters back but it easily could have been 20 minutes shorter.
View original postAfter the messy third Spider-Man film people were concerned having three villains could again turn out to be a problem for the new movie. Yes and no. The number isn't the issue here, it's that one of them has no real motive to attack the good guy in the first place and therefore remains shockingly flat. Having left out that story line would have made for a much leaner, more interesting film, because the other bad guy works great.
View original postWhich one? Just out of curiousity? Harry was pissed that Spider-Man wasn't helping him, then discovered his friend had been misleading him. He's a spoiled rotten rich boy with a corresponding entitlement complex, and either the green juice or his illness could be having an effect on his brain, so the reasons don't have to be good, just make sense to a whack job who thinks he should get whatever he wants. And Max was also a few screws loose, and fixated on Spider-Man to a blatantly unhealthy degree. The idea of a stalker turning against the object of his unrequited obsession is hardly unknown. Regardless of the psychological reality, it's a firmly established law of Movie Psychiatry.
I liked the Goblin, his actor, his motivations. I thought Electro was a huge let-down. I fail to see why you had to get someone with the great reputation of Foxx to play the socially awkward mega-nerd for 5 minutes, then getting tortured by a cross-dressing German scientist (the most horrible character I've seen on film in years) and then easily get lured into hating Spider-Man without having a somewhat decent reason.
View original postThe rhino armor guy was the biggest letdown since "The Grey". But regarding the Marvel Studios thing, aside from Stan Lee's appearance, they are not really connected. Sony owns Spider-Man, and has nothing to do with the Avengers. I read recently that this is why there is no mention of him showing up to help out the Avengers during the alien invasion of his own city, and that there are a couple of mutants on the Avengers in the comics who are going to be in Avengers 2, but will not be referred to as mutants, or by their names, because the X-men filmmakers own the rights to those characters, as well as the Marvel concept of mutants. From the X-men preview in the credits, I am assuming that they are the same studio that owns Spider-Man, so he could deal with mutants and stuff like that, but not the Avengers, nor can SHIELD get involved with the mutant round-up or crackdown, as you would assume would fall into their jurisdiction from the Avengers films or the TV show. IDK where the less successfull Marvel films fall, like Ghost Rider, Punisher, Daredevil or the Fantastic Four. Probably not with the Avengers for that last one, which would explain the casting of Chris Evans in both franchises.
I know that they are not connected, can't and won't be as long as Sony puts out movies regularly. That's my complaint, actually. They don't deliver the goods ad convincingly as Marvel itself does.
See the chart linked below for who has the rights for which characters. In short: Fantastic Four and X-Men could get connected somewhere down the line. Sony only has Spider-Man and his villains, hence the attempt to build a bigger universe based merely on them. Fox played a shitload of money to have their X-preview shown in the competition's end credits.
Marvel owns the rest.
View original postBTW, a trailer I saw before this film showed an X-men character who was really really fast. Might he have been one of the pair in cells in the post-credits scene from Thor 2 or CA:Winter Soldier, whom I mentally labeled SeizureMan?
Correct, we will be seeing two Quicksilvers in the next year, which will have zero in common but their powers thanks to the different studios responsible. Makes me feel dirty (not the good kind) just to think about it.
View original postAgain, mega-disappointment, as the previews made a much bigger deal of Ira Gaines stalking about in his trenchcoat, like some sort of behind the scenes mastermind out to take down Spider-Man.
Oh is he playing the man with the hat? I didn't catch the character's last name but it was mentioned when he took the elevator up to the invention chamber. I am very curious who he'll turn out to be.
*MySmiley*
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
- 23/04/2014 09:52:23 AM
912 Views
Good action scenes, meh storyline, with the overall antagonist being too stupid for words.
- 03/05/2014 01:26:02 AM
593 Views
Concerning the movie rights and the villain situation
- 04/05/2014 05:26:28 PM
644 Views
Anytime these movies do something that the last trilogy did, they come up worse
- 31/05/2014 06:49:23 PM
497 Views