The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Based on what I've seen of the trailers so far, and from what I thought of the previous film, I'll be skipping it. Spidey needs a rest. :no:
 
I don't like Marvel revamping everything, especially the Spiderman franchise, which was filmed only 10 years ago. It's alright they revamped Batman, Superman... These things are too old. But Spiderman?! I'm not gonna be surprised if they revamp Matrix :)))

On the other hand, most of those revamps are done good, and the Amazing Spiderman is not an exception. So... we shall see :) Looks promising
 
Inarius said:
...It's alright they revamped Batman, Superman... These things are too old...
Click to expand...

Eight years between “Batman and Robin” and “Batman Begins”
Seven years between “Superman Returns” and “Man Of Steel”
Five years between “Spiderman 3” and “The Amazing Spiderman”

There’s not a huge difference there. Batman and Superman certainly weren’t old when they were rebooted.

And to my mind, they’re now rebooting Batman again. No way will “Batman vs. Superman” follow on from “The Dark Knight Rises”. Only three years later!

Anyway, I do agree, there was no need to reboot Spiderman. “The Amazing Spiderman” was ok-ish. The number of villains being touted here though reminds me too much of “Spiderman 3”, which can only be described as a cluster-f@%K.

I’ll probably wait for the DVD.




p.s. And I’ve asked it before, but I never seem to get a response. Does it not irk anybody else that “Batman Begins” is now considered the start of a new trilogy, when it’s clearly no more than a prequel to Tim Burtons “Batman”?
 
mad_hatter said:
Eight years between “Batman and Robin” and “Batman Begins”
Seven years between “Superman Returns” and “Man Of Steel”
Five years between “Spiderman 3” and “The Amazing Spiderman”

There’s not a huge difference there. Batman and Superman certainly weren’t old when they were rebooted.
Click to expand...
When I'm saying reboot, I mean not the difference between the last of the previous series, and the first of the rebooting ones. Reboot is actually meant to reboot the first of the previous series. Because that's what rebooting means - to start from the beginning!

So if we're talking about Superman and Man of Steel, I mean the FIRST Superman, when was made in 1978. 1978 to 2013 is 35 years.

mad_hatter said:
And to my mind, they’re now rebooting Batman again. No way will “Batman vs. Superman” follow on from “The Dark Knight Rises”. Only three years later!
Click to expand...

That's not a reboot. That's a sequel to the already rebooted series. Batman is from The Dark Knight Rises, and Superman is from Man of Steel. They continue the story here

mad_hatter said:
The number of villains being touted here though reminds me too much of “Spiderman 3”, which can only be described as a cluster-f@%K.
Click to expand...
Wait wait wait... Out of all the Spiderman trilogy, Spiderman 3 was the best! And there were only 2 villains, which is the same scheme as in The Dark Knight, in Thor and in all the Old Batman movies.
 
Spiderman 3 had Sandman and Hobgoblin, which was fine. Then they tried to cram Venom in at the end, and that's where it all fell apart. Had they saved Venom for the next movie and done him right, it would have worked better both for the film, and in the eyes of the fans. But Sam Raimi has stated he doesn't really like Venom, so didn't care (and it shows). For my money, S2 was my favorite of the series. But I'm not really a big Spidey fan anyway. So I'll probably see the new one when it's on dvd, but not likely before.
 
I always wanted to see carnage, but it would have to be rated R so it will never happen
 
It would be nice to see something new. Or at least see another superhero get a movie. There's a much of profitable heroes that are yet to be adapted to film.

The people who keep bringing the franchise back remind me of savage kids scampering around, trying to find more candy from a broken piñata.
 
Inarius said:
When I'm saying reboot, I mean not the difference between the last of the previous series, and the first of the rebooting ones. Reboot is actually meant to reboot the of the previous series. Because that's what rebooting means - to start from the beginning!

So if we're talking about Superman and Man of Steel, I mean the FIRST Superman, when was made in 1978. 1978 to 2013 is 35 years.
Click to expand...

That's fine. But after the final film of the first series, the producers have a choice; sequel or reboot. So, IMHO, the time between, say, "Spiderman 3" and "The Amazing Spiderman" is more important.


Inarius said:
That's not a reboot. That's a sequel to the already rebooted series. Batman is from The Dark Knight Rises, and Superman is from Man of Steel. They continue the story here
Click to expand...

Do they? When was that announced? If that's correct, it's a bit daft of them to un-do all the hard work Nolan put in to creating a "realistic" Batman. I wouldn't have thought they'd allow that Batman to share his universe with aliens and supernatural beings. But that was just what I thought they'd do. You seem to know I'm wrong...


Inarius said:
Wait wait wait... Out of all the Spiderman trilogy, Spiderman 3 was the best! And there were only 2 villains, which is the same scheme as in The Dark Knight, in Thor and in all the Old Batman movies.
Click to expand...

I guess there's no accounting for taste.

And, yep, 3 villains.
 
mad_hatter said:
Do they? When was that announced? If that's correct, it's a bit daft of them to un-do all the hard work Nolan put in to creating a "realistic" Batman. I wouldn't have thought they'd allow that Batman to share his universe with aliens and supernatural beings. But that was just what I thought they'd do. You seem to know I'm wrong...
Click to expand...

Well, here's what they say about it. They confirm that it's the sequel to Man of Steel and Dark Knight Rises.
Sequel to Man of Steel
Sequel to The Dark Knight Rises
Sequel to Man of Steel (wikipedia)

There is no actual announcement, but Nolan is one of the producers.

Nobody said, that in Batman universe there are no aliens and supernatural beings. And I wouldn't call it supernatural. It's natural, because he's alien, and according to the universe, these aliens can be stronger on Earth, because of low gravity or something.

Moreover, Batman and Superman are originally characters from the same DC universe, so they should be meet.

mad_hatter said:
And, yep, 3 villains.
Click to expand...
Well, comparing to Sandbag and Venom, Hobgoblin is a minor villain here. I wouldn't call him antagonist.
 
mad_hatter said:
p.s. And I’ve asked it before, but I never seem to get a response. Does it not irk anybody else that “Batman Begins” is now considered the start of a new trilogy, when it’s clearly no more than a prequel to Tim Burtons “Batman”?
Click to expand...

Respectfully, :) ...I don't really like to think of Batman Begins as a prequel to Batman (1989). Though it does seem like they could fit each other's timelines. I prefer to think of Batman Begins as a reboot, as another take.
 
richy said:
Though it does seem like they could fit each other's timelines. I prefer to think of Batman Begins as a reboot...
Click to expand...

Don’t get me wrong, it’s absolutely fine the think of it as the first of the ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’. I do to. It works perfectly fine that way.

But I can’t believe it was initially meant to be that way.

There are just a few little things, mainly differences between “BB” and “TDK” that don’t fit. For example, did Gotham get completely destroyed and rebuilt between the two movies? Cause they sure do look like completely different cities. In fact, the Gotham in “BB” looks a hell of a lot like Tim Burton’s Gotham… And whatever happened to Bruce’s ability to control a swarm of bats? That seemed like an incredibly useful talent, that could have been utilised in the capture of many a foe…

Not that any of that matters, mind. I’m just sayin’!
 
Begins doesn't quite work as a prequel to Burton's Batman. Among other reasons, both feature the death Bruce's parents, and a different finger on the trigger. In both films, who killed them is a pretty significant plot point. I think that's more significant than any changes from BB to TDK, but I'd have to watch them all again to really judge.

And I REALLY want someone to do an adaptation of "Arkham Asylum: A Serious House On Serious Earth"
 
I remember reading an interesting article about how they chose to shoot TDK in Chicago. I think that's part of the reason why it looks so distinct and...realer. Not necessarily any bearing on continuity between all the movies, just an interesting note. Where did they shoot TDKR? Oh, looks like many locations.
 
A lot of TDKR was shot around here! If you've ever been to Pittsburgh, some of it is REALLY distinctive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top