Remove ads

The Amazing spiderman 2 could have been a better film if

TheSufficientMan

TheSufficientMan

Location
City Z
The Amazing spiderman had so much potential, but Sony really messed up. Andrew Garfield is actually a very good actor but the writing ruined everything. Honecoming was indeed the best spiderman movie I have seen so far (next to Spiderman 2)

What do you think the creators of the amazing spiderman should have done to make tasm 1 and 2 better than homecoming? Say for example, you time travelled back to the past and told Sony to stop fucking shit up. What would u do to make it better than homecoming?

In tasm 2, Peter has already graduated. But I feel like the writers should have made him still be in college and search for the killer of his dead uncle. While the comedy between flash and Parker continues.

Also, which suit was better? Tasm 2 suit or homecoming? Tasm 2 suit was pretty good but I personally think homecoming was better
 
Don't kill Gwen Stacy.
Focus on a single villain.
Get rid of the "magic blood" bullshit.
Tone down the soap opera between Gwen and Peter.
Don't try and phone in references (Black Cat, Sinister Six suits, etc).
If you focus on Electro, don't make him a mish-mash of all the stupid 'nerd' clichés.
If you focus on Green Goblin, burn down the original design and use literally anything else.
Don't make Rhino a stupid eeeeevul idiot that shouts how eeeeevul he is. Show some respect for Paul Giamatti. Also, rework his suit to make it look more like the Ultimate!Rhino, he looked really fucking dumb in the movie.
Get rid of the Parkers' subplot.
 
Melancholeric said:
Don't kill Gwen Stacy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gwent does die in the comics, but of course I'm sure you are talking about the amazing spiderman 2. I believe that Gwent should be killed, but not so soon. Already one movie over and she already dead. Could have given her more time.

I heard that Sony was planning to have the oscorp tower in the avengers 1. But it was too late as the scene had already been rendered.

In tasm 2 2014, Gwen shouldn't have died. And if Andrew wasn't fired for the dumbest reason, he would have been in civil war. What do you think about spiderman supporting iron man at first, but then learns the truth and turns on him like in the comics?

Also Sony was rushing too much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they were planning to have venom in tasm 3. Too early dude.
 
Vegito said:
Gwent does die in the comics, but of course I'm sure you are talking about the amazing spiderman 2. I believe that Gwent should be killed, but not so soon. Already one movie over and she already dead. Could have given her more time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, I don't believe Gwen should be killed at all. Killing her to pump up Peter's drama is distasteful and ugly.
Vegito said:
I heard that Sony was planning to have the oscorp tower in the avengers 1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm sorry, I lost you on "Sony was planning to have something in a no-Sony movie".
Vegito said:
And if Andrew wasn't fired for the dumbest reason, he would have been in civil war. What do you think about spiderman supporting iron man at first, but then learns the truth and turns on him like in the comics?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What truth? MCU never cared about superhero registration, it was all window-dressing. Movies don't give a shit about comicbooks and frankly shouldn't, both Civil Wars were a toxic foetid mess that only brought harm to the overall storytelling.
 
Melancholeric said:
No, I don't believe Gwen should be killed at all. Killing her to pump up Peter's drama is distasteful and ugly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gwen's only lasting a notable trait in the Spider-man mythos was dying tragically. She had almost no real character beyond that. Including her is basically putting a big sign over her head saying "dead man walking". If the idea was to have a non-MJ love interest who didn't die there were a lot of options to chose from. Gwen being picked explicitly means the writers planned to kill her. Having Goblin show up out of nowhere with no context in the last two minutes to do was stupid and cheep though. It'd have been better if somehow the feedback from Spider-Man's fight with Electro fried the control booth she was in and that killed her, to give the death some meaning besides shock value.

As for fixing ASM2 the best idea would be for them to make a movie first rather than trying to create a shared universe and just using this movie as basically a show and tell for stuffed suits to get a quick visual aid to work from. So much of this film was devoted to setting up the next five films they forgot to make a film that people would want to see more of.
 
VolantRedX said:
Gwen's only lasting a notable trait in the Spider-man mythos was dying tragically. She had almost no real character beyond that. Including her is basically putting a big sign over her head saying "dead man walking".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet that didn't stop Spectacular Spider-Man from making her a great character. Just because source material treated Gwen like shit, it doesn't mean movie adaptations should treat her like shit too.
 
Melancholeric said:
And yet that didn't stop Spectacular Spider-Man from making her a great character. Just because source material treated Gwen like shit, it doesn't mean movie adaptations should treat her like shit too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Spectacular Spider-Man was a kids cartoon show. They're not going to kill anyone. Why have a character that acts nothing like Gwen, be called Gwen unless the plan was to kill her? It's the sole meaningful thing about the character.
 
VolantRedX said:
Spectacular Spider-Man was a kids cartoon show. They're not going to kill anyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You don't need to kill people to make great drama, that's the main reason why Gwen's death is so vapid.
VolantRedX said:
Why have a character that acts nothing like Gwen, be called Gwen
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why have a character that acts nothing like Mary Jane, be called Michelle Mary Jane?

Answer: because you can, and because you want to build upon the source material to make something new.
 
Melancholeric said:
You don't need to kill people to make great drama, that's the main reason why Gwen's death is so vapid.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gwen's death is a major part of Spider-Man. It fundamentally altered both the character and the story he existed in. It had far far more impact than Gwen did alive or indeed ever could've had alive. ASM2 failed in the execution of that death to actually have there be an impact on Peter. If nothing else the end of the movie shouldn't have shown him back in the costume. Have the movie end with him still damaged by it and have the third film build up to his return to the costume.

Melancholeric said:
Why have a character that acts nothing like Mary Jane, be called Michelle Mary Jane?

Answer: because you can, and because you want to build upon the source material to make something new.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But again the difference is that MJ and for that matter most of Spider-Man's many love interests were largely interchangeable. MJ stands out for longevity but she really had very little to contribute to the story of Spider-Man. Gwen stands out because the impact her death has on Spider-Man's career. It'd be like if they made a Batman movie that introduced Jason Todd as Robin. The only reason to do that would be to kill him off at some point. He's basically an empty character without that.
 
Melancholeric said:
A comicbook Spider-Man. Not a movie one. Movies don't have to follow the stories of comicbooks, and saying movies should do the same twists comicbooks did is utterly silly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except they're adapting the comic book. They're sort of obligated to at least try and follow the source material. Otherwise why make a movie based on Spider-Man?
 
VolantRedX said:
Except they're adapting the comic book. They're sort of obligated to at least try and follow the source material.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is not what adaptation means - the very meaning of adaptation is changing the work to make it filmable, emotionally engaging, socially relevant and politically correct. Source material is a flexible guideline, not a holy word, and there is no obligation to repeat the plots written by someone else, especially when source material is a thousand of loosely-connected stories sold by issues.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top