Hello, Spongey here.
With Halloween done, I think it’s time we do another Movie Battle! This time it’s really interesting as we look at two rather divise films that both have their fans who think it’s better than they give it credit for.
I have some interesting thoughts on them so today we’ll dig in and find out which is better. So without further ado-
Oh, it’s Deviant Art Reviewer ClaytoniumStudios94! What are you doing here?
C: I hear you’re doing another edition of Movie Battles, and going by the description, it’s focusing on Marvel’s most popular character, Spider-Man.
And since Homecoming was huge this year, the focus would be on 2007’s Spider-Man 3 (dir. by Evil Dead’s Sam Raimi) and 2014’s the Amazing Spider-Man 2 (dir. by 500 Days of Summer’s Marc Webb). And boy, I have some things to say about them.
Oh, you want a crossover where we both look at the pros and cons of the films, to make this more interesting?
C: Yeah, why not! It’ll spice some things up.
Well, okay then. Today we’ll be looking at the most hated films in the Spider-Man franchise and see which one holds up better. Now, I’ve given my thoughts on all the others films before so I’ll let Clay take this one:
C: Spider-Man (2002)- This movie holds a special place in my heart not only because it was my introduction to Spider-Man, not only was this my introduction to Marvel, but my introduction to superheroes in general. Sure, the writing can get cheesy, but that’s its charm and fun, but on the flipside, I do see why some wouldn’t get into it. But I still thoroughly enjoy it.
Spider-Man 2- What can I say about this that everyone hasn’t said already? It is the best Spider-Man movie to date. Great action, great writing, one of the best superhero movies ever made.
The Amazing Spider-Man- I have some problems with it, like some parts mimic the Sam Raimi trilogy, some subplots don’t get entirely resolved and Andrew Garfield’s portrayal of Peter Parker. But I do like this movie, with sleek action and good chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone are really good.
Spider-Man: Homecoming- Again, what can I say that others haven’t? This is easily the best Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 2. While the romance is a bit weak, the humor, the action and Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-Man are what makes this movie work. Also, I like how small this is compared to others which are much larger, it’s a nice change of pace.
Okay then. Before this, I hadn’t seen Spider-Man 3 but since I got a set of all the movies recently I figured now was the time to watch it, mostly so I can do this thing.
Without further ado, let’s see which web slinging adventure deserves more appreciation. This, is Spider-Man 3 Vs The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Before we get into it, I should quickly mention some minor things. The effects and action are about equal in both movies but I will say Spider-Man 3 easily the better score.
Amazing 2’s Score is fine but Spider-Man 3’s score arguably tells the story better than the writing, like a lot of the best scores do. So there you go, it gets a big point off the bat.
C: I agree with what you say, while I do like some of Hans Zimmer’s score in Amazing 2 being very triumphant, but it’s the dubstep score that sort of brings it down
(Oh and 3 has the better Stan Lee cameo because for once it has meaning to it and isn’t just another dumb joke)
C: In terms of villains, Spider-Man’s rouges gallery is about as well-known as Batman’s, with famous baddies like Dr. Octopus and the Lizard, obscure ones like Kraven the Hunter and Mysterio and fan-favorites like Venom and Carnage.
Ah yes, we can’t have a Spider-Man movie without some at least mildly memorable baddies. Both of them contain a few villains to …mixed effect.
C: One of the biggest criticisms with both movies is that there are too many villains, three of them to be exact for each one and we’re going to give our thoughts on all of them.
Spider-Man 3 contains three villains, debatable. Sandman, Venom, and Harry Osborne. The last one is debatable as he doesn’t go back to full evil until the end, but I count him as only not evil because he gets amnesia.
C: Let’s start with the character that is featured in both: Harry Osborne himself.
Yeah, since he’s the only villain both films share, let’s compare these 2. Now, 3 does have the luxury of having already built him up in the other two movies but ah well.
C: Picking up after 2, Harry, played by James Franco, is now taking the helm of his father Norman, and now becomes New Goblin, rather than the Hobglobin in the comics which I don’t mind that much.
Early on, he gets amnesia and is out of the movie. Yeah, that’s a pretty weak way to get him out and focus on your 50 other plot threads. He spends most of the movie just hanging around until it’s time for him to be important.
C: Eh, to be fair, it’s better than the series finale of Full House. But when he gains his memory back, he does some scummy things to ruin Peter’s life, making him more villainous and it leads up to an amazing fight between him and Peter in his mansion.
And when he is, it’s fine but this was meant to be his last film in this series and he spends most of it doing nothing! To be fair, the way his arc ends is kinda nice but because the rest wasn’t that great, it doesn’t hit hard in the way it should.
C: I do agree with that maybe if they cut out the amnesia subplot, and make him more a villain, the impact would’ve been better. But as is, I felt his sacrifice was actually well done and it gave his character a nice conclusion.
In Amazing Spider-Man 2, this is his introduction so they spend a lot of time building him up. Here, his dad dies and is generally kind of a jerk to him and he has to deal with a lot, especially as OsCorp turns their back on him. That means he’s given a lot to do and once he appears, he’s a constant presence for the most part. He’s fully fleshed away and done pretty well. He’s the better of the sympathetic villains here.
C: Dane DeHann, who portrays Harry in Amazing Spider-Man 2, does a good job with his performance and I agree of the three villains, he is the most sympathetic.
But honestly I feel like they were sort of rushing his story without being introduced in the first movie, and I didn’t get the feeling that he and Peter are friends, they share a scene together catching up, and how Peter mentions that they’re best friends because….reasons.
At least in the Raimi trilogy, Harry and Peter’s friendship was better established and had better focus throughout the course of the trilogy.
That’s true I suppose, but I do like their friendship enough in Amazing 2. They at least set it up somewhat and I do like their scenes together. As I said, Spider-Man 3 has the advantage of building this up but for what they had to work with, Amazing 2 does fine.
C: You bring up a good point, though I felt that their chemistry is good, though not as good as Peter and Gwen’s (more on that later).
Plus, am I the only one who felt it was a tad out of character for Spider-Man to refuse to help Harry? There was a deleted concept where he does give him his blood which results in him going mad and eventually using the suit that was made for healing Norman before he died, and he would have become the Green Goblin earlier on, which I feel would’ve made that subplot better.
Oh yeah, that part. As I thought about it, I was mixed on it. I mean, if Peter gives him the blood, he does have a small chance of dying but if he doesn’t, he a 100 percent chance of dying. But to be fair, he likely doesn’t want to be the reason he dies and it is a hard decision. But I do agree they could have conveyed that better. Especially since they deleted a better version of it.
C: You know I never thought about that, I mean I did think that it was out of character mainly because Spidey usually doesn’t refuse help from anyone, but it could have a different meaning if he didn’t want him to be the reason to die.
As for him as the Green Goblin, it comes off more like he was put there to kill off Gwen Stacy and nothing else. As mentioned earlier, I would’ve like to have seen him become the Goblin earlier on. In terms of his design, while I appreciate that they make him look like a legit goblin, but as Korey Coleman and Martin Thomas commented, he looks like he hasn’t slept for days, hasn’t brushed his teeth and was on an all seaweed diet.
It’s sad when the early tests for the Green Goblin mask for the first movie is a scarier version of the character.
To be fair, it’s still less silly than the Goblin design in Spider-Man 1.
C: But still, original concept = scarier.
His friendship with Peter also adds a lot, in both movies. But because he’s more fleshed out and isn’t wasted, Amazing 2 has the better Harry.
C: I honestly felt more sympathetic towards Andrew in Chronicle than Harry in Amazing 2. While the amnesia subplot is not needed, I did like that they ended his arc on a high. I felt 3 had the better Harry.
As for the explicit sympathetic villains, there’s Sandman Vs Electro. Sandman is okay, I guess. I do feel sorry for him due to the set up but they do very little with it.
Like most things in the film, he just comes and goes. Oh, and let’s get this out of the way: Him being Ben’s killer is stupid. It’s an unneeded plot thread and the only thing I can say positive about is that at least they made the killer an existing character that can work on his own, instead of making that thread even more disconnected than it already was.
C: I like that they made the Sandman into Uncle Ben’s killer, rather than his original concept where he was just a stereotypical thug. Sure, it is very out of nowhere and I wonder why they tried to tie up that subplot that was pretty much tied up in the first one. But I did like the different take that they did for the character even including giving him a sick daughter.
I do agree with that we should’ve seen him interact more with his sick daughter, Hell, the Editor’s Cut included a scene where he sees his daughter, though disguised as a sandcastle, which could’ve been left in the movie. And c’mon, tell me you didn’t think his transformation as the Sandman is amazing.
But I will agree with everyone that the scene where he becomes the Sandman is amazing.
C: And I wanna talk about the ending where Sandman tells Spider-Man what really happened on the night of Uncle Ben’s death. And after hearing the story, Spider-Man forgives him. That’s something you don’t see often in a superhero movie, usually it’s hero defeats bad guy, the end. I appreciate them doing something different like that.
His last scene is nice but once again, it’s a tad hollow.
Electro is interesting as I do like him more in the first half than later on. I like how he starts as this kind of crazy guy who is a bit too obsessed with Spider-Men especially when he saves him. I mean, he talks to himself pretending Spidey is there. Yeah. It’s done a way that makes him likable but clearly unhinged. His change to villainy I think works out and he’s a decent enough threat.
C: It’s akin to Jim Carrey’s portrayal of Edward Nigma/the Riddler in Batman Forever. And while I did like what they tried to do with him, though much like Riddler,
I wanted to know more about him. In another episode of “Why Delete This?” there’s a whole character, that being Max’s wheelchair-bound mother who doesn’t care much for him even though he takes care of her. After his accident becoming Electro, he returns home and discovers that she is standing up and getting a big payoff from OsCorp which gets him angry and begins using his powers.
That makes him a little more sympathetic and a better way to discover his powers rather than him walking to Times Square scaring people.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: Stop deleting important stuff from movies. It only makes the product worse.
C: Also, I feel that he doesn’t have a clear motivation. With the other villains in the previous movies, their motivations were at the very least clear. I felt that Electro did have a motivation, but for whatever reason they cut it out. It makes it look like he has it out for Spider-Man because he stole his thunder on the Times Square screens. That’s kinda weak.
I’m pretty sure his motivation was A, everyone was turning on him, including Spider-Man who he really looked up to.
C: Maybe, but what about these quotes: “You set me up” and “You lied to me!” How?
I think he feels lied to since Spidey didn’t remember him off the bat or something like that. Yeah, they got the Max part of him better than the Electro part. But i get what they were going for
C: Eh, you do have a point there.
He doesn’t have the best pay off either. In the end, he’s just kind of killed off, forgetting that he was a real person and had a sympaethic= nature to him. This series can remember that in some villains like Doc Ock but here it’s just an afterthought.
But in general, I pick Electro. He just leaves more of an impact He’s more enjoyable and more fleshed out. They tried with Sandman but it just didn’t quite work while Electro mostly works minus the lack of payoff.
C: As for me, I’m going for Sandman, while I can see your points, I still feel that at least had a motivation. Could he have been done better? Yeah, but following up Doc Ock was a hard feat to do. I was getting into what they did with Electro, but I felt he lost a bit of momentum once he becomes him.
Then we come to the last minute villains,.Rhino and Venom. It’s unfair to compare as one is only there for a couple set pieces while one is meant to be a larger part of the story.
C: Venom is among the more popular villains in the Spider-Man lineup, so did they screw him up? Not really.
Before he becomes venom just he’s kind of an asshole for Peter to have a rivalry with and that’s about it.
C: That’s the point. In the original comics, Eddie Brock/Venom is basically sort of like an asshole jock that will make Flash Thompson look like a Saint.
They changed him up a bit in this movie to make him more like an obnoxious sleaze ball, which is a change I personally don’t mind for this interpretation for the character. His turn into Venom is somewhat true to the comics, he gets fired for fake photos of Spider-Man, his loses his girlfriend and sinks low to go to a church and pray for Peter’s death. All that’s missing is the fact that in the comics he also had cancer.
You forget that I don’t know, or care about comic books. I bet all this was done better but I can only judge it on its own. I get what they were going for but in execution, it wasn’t done the best.
C: My bad.
I don’t even know why we need him as an extra villain, Peter is his own villain with the whole Symbiote thing going on.
C: Yeah, even Sam Raimi notes that he was tacked on last minute due to fan demand. And it definitely feels like it, it may have been best to save him for a potential sequel. But much like Paralaxx in the Green Lantern movie, I am glad we do sort of get him in this movie alongside Spidey. And when he becomes Venom, I thought it was actually pretty cool.
Sure, he’s a bit scrawny and they could’ve done something better with his voice, but the costume as well as the effects done on his face were great. They did a somewhat good job on bringing Venom to life.
He’s got a cool design but in terms of an actual character, he’s just there.
C: I could sort of say the same for the Rhino in Amazing Spider-Man 2. If they cut him out of the movie, it wouldn’t be a huge loss since he’s just there. He’s only in about two scenes having no impact on the story.
And that’s why I pick Rhino. At least with him he’s only in two scenes and without the Sinister Six stuff, I wouldn’t have thought much of him. With Venom, they try to flesh him out but it’s so clear he was put in last minute.
C: Yeah, but as a villain, what does Rhino accomplish other than vehicular manslaughter? Not a whole lot. I remember being disappointed that they end the movie just when Spider-Man is about to fight the Rhino.
Now, to be fair, Paul Giamatti looks like he’s having a blast playing the character since it was a dream for him to play it, but I feel he was wasted in this for having no purpose despite him being in all the posters, ads and even the DVD/Blu-Ray cover. As last minute as Venom was, he at least played a part in the story.
You just reminded how bad the marketing was for this movie. I blame the ads for making us think Rhino would be in it more.
C: Sony, please learn to market your movies better. The past three haven’t been to kind to you. And I’m the guy who didn’t think Pixels was all that bad.
S: But take that aside, and I’d still take a tacked-on villain who only shows up for some quick action scenes then a tacked on villain who takes up so much screentime that it makes more obvious he was tacked on and distracts from the story. So yeah, on all fronts Amazing Spider-Man 2 handles its villains better.
C: Why is that?
That’s because they put more effort into fleshing them out so they leave an impact. Spider-Man 3 tries at points but there’s so much going on they can’t flesh it all out and there’s not much impact until the very end.
C: For me, I’d go with 3. You bring up good points that I can understand, but I feel that the villains in 3 worked better. With Amazing 2, their setups are good, but I feel as if I could see them be developed more, like Electro’s motivation or Harry going mad becoming the Goblin.
All this is why my point goes to Amazing Spidey 2
C: And for me, Spider-Man 3.
SPONGEY’S WINNER: AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2
CLAY’S WINNER: SPIDER-MAN 3
Now, let’s move on to the Romance. You see…
C: Amazing Spider-Man 2 wins. No contest.
…Well, we agree on something.
C: Sorry for the interruption, but I’m mixed with Mary Jane, not saying anything bad about Kirsten Dunst who does a good job in all 3 movies and she is pretty cute, but at times, she’s kind of a tool.
But to be honest, I think this is worth analyzing at least because of how Spider-Man 3 handles it.
C: Ok, lay it on me.
Those who remember my Spider-Man 2 review recall I liked her in the first but in 2 she was kinda of a bitch for half it, which held the film back a bit. I think 2 alone is why people don’t like her even though she’s mostly fine and she’s apparently better in the comics.
C: While the latter is true, rewatching 2 again, you’re not wrong.
And to be honest, I think Spider-Man 3 kinda fixed her!
C: Yeah, it does sort of repeat some aspect in 3, and it is handled better in there than it was in 2.
Yeah, I think this is one part this movie does mostly well, fixing my problems from efore. Here, they go into her a bit more. Here, she’s trying to be an actress but everyone hates her.
C: Huh, irony.
This leads to some interesting moments for it, where she’s just on her own in some scenes. She’s back to being a real character here. You do feel sorry for here most of the time. She even gets a hit on the villain without failing epically, unlike in Spider-Man 2. The romance aspect is a bit mixed though.
C: Mary Jane is just trying to do what she’s always been trying to do, and I bet some can relate to that.
I like most of what she goes through, especially since Peter ends up changing and all that. But then they had to make it a love…square relaly with both Gwen and Harry entering the picture for her.
C: Yeeeah, that’s the big problem with the romance in 3, now granted, I don’t mind love triangles in media, one of my favorite books, the Great Gatsby, is a great example. But this is love overkill.
Concept-wise, I’m fine with that but at points it gets to be forced and like a lot of things in this movie, it just isn’t executed as well as it should be She can be too bitch-y at points too, even if it’s not as bad as before. The romance can get be a tad weak when it gets more complicated compared to the first half where the drama feels more interesting to me. I do like the very ending to it though but more on that in the writing.
C: Yeah, can’t argue with that. The ending felt more like the end of a romance that developed over three movies. And it does have a good climactic feel to it since there isn’t a Spider-Man 4 after this.
So yeah, it’s kinda mixed but too bad.…But man, is it way better in Amazing. Everyone has said but yes, their chemistry is just too great.
C: It helps that at the time, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were dating which made their relationship more real. Shame that they aren’t together anymore, but at least they’re wishing each other well.
The comedy and drama on them is just really solid, and I get invested in this more than anything else in the film. On every level, it’s just a strong romance. Even the film drags a tad, it still keeps me invested.
C: And like the Critic said, they’re just freaking adorable.
And unlike some movies, I feel they earned the ending with them but I’ll go more that with the writing.
C: So, point goes to Amazing Spider-Man 2.
BOTH WINNERS: Amazing Spider-Man 2
If you saw the Nostalgia Critic’s video, you kind of have my thoughts. They went into the reasons anyone could prefer either version of the character and it’s all up to personal preference.
C: Yeah, it’s a preference on what people’s interpretation of the character is, much like a lot of comic book heroes in adaptations. And that’s sort of my feelings, both have their ups and downs
For me, I like them about equally and I feel like they end up being as good as their materiel lets them. Meaning Tobey is better in 2 then 1 for example. So, for this we’ll mostly try to just judge by how the character is written.
C: Okay, time to address the Elephant in the Room: in terms of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man, he does a good job, as for Peter Parker..I’m not a fan.
Now, I’ve heard some say that he’s more like Ultimate Spider-Man’s Peter, but at least that Peter’s personality was consistent. I’m a lright with updating Peter to being a troubled teen who lost his parents, and while he has hints of geekiness, he didn’t come across as the sweet nerdy kid doing the right thing.
He’s more like an angsty punk kid, and I really couldn’t connect to him as well as I did other interpretations of Peter Parker.
But I feel with Amazing Spider-Man 2, he has loosened up and is better done than the first one. He’s less angsty and he embraces more of the character of Spider-Man.
I get that and I do agree. Andrew’s Peter being a bit off isn’t a big issue but it is lesser in Amazing 2.
But onto the writing aspect of him.Like pretty much every Spider-Man movie, the films are mostly about Peter going through a lot of crap. Both have them dealing with more than 1 villain along with personal stuff and in terms of Spider-Man itself,
I can’t say either film is better here. Any flaws in writing either have don’t affect him too much. He’s still very much a good lead because of what they go through and how they handle it.
C: Both have their strengths and their weaknesses, Maguire can be a bit whiny at times and Garfield’s cockiness could get annoying at times: I mean, take the opening when he’s trying to stop the Rhino in his truck, you think he would probably get some people out of the way of destruction rather than cracking jokes.
Yeah, Again, it is weird how he handles some things in Amazing but they are both small things to me. But hey, Spider-Man 3 doesn’t have him at his smartest either.
C: Yeah, like the scene during the celebration of him getting the key to the city and does the famous upside-down kiss to Gwen Stacy and later when Peter and MJ are at a fancy restaurant and Gwen happens to be there, he uses the “she’s from my class” excuse. That feels like something out of a sitcom.
Yes, he did it it for the crowd but given the situation, it was a dumb move. To be more fair, neither version of Spidey does anything that dumb for the rest of their movies.
C: And thank God for it.
C: I do wanna bring up one scene in Amazing Spider-Man 2, when he comes across this kid who is getting bullied and he comes to his aid, helps him fix that little windmill thing and walks him home. Despite some of my qualms with Garfield as Peter Parker and some of the things in this movie, this scene nailed what Spider-Man is all about.
It really does depend on your preference is in terms of what he goes through, and how the actor portrays it.
C: I like both for different reasons, and though we have to choose one for our final answer, I’m going to cheat by saying: pick your poison.”
So screw it, I’m gonna tie this one. But to make it more interesting, both will learn a point here as both do pretty well and the character is decent enough through both films.
BOTH WINNER: Tie
Before we even say anything, we must say that we are aware of the Editor’s Cut of 3 (which is up there with “Producer’s cut” as far as odd titles for different versions of a film go) of 3 which fixes certain issues such as that dumb scene with the Butler.
As I said before, that stuff is interesting but frankly it’s dumb it was there to begin with. Anyway…
And now come to the most important aspect of the film, at least when it comes to the main things people dislike about these films. It’s safe to say these movies have their ups and downs in terms of witting.
And of course it’s because both have films quite a bit going on and people feel they have too much going on. It’s important to note that just because a movie has a lot going on in it, doesn’t mean it’s a mess.
There’s plenty of ways you can juggle different storylnes and such and make it into a coherent story. Which one does it better? Let’s see.
C: In terms of the plot structure and writing in 3, it’s similar to the last two movies. Sure, the dialogue can be hokey and some of the issues we’ve discussed, but why I sort of prefer 3 is that yeah, it has its issues and it’s cluttered, but at least the story is still flowing like a simple three-act structure.
I’m going to have to disagree there because honestly, I don’t think it handles all these parts that well as a whole. Bless their hearts they try, but I don’t feel like this all works.
The main reason is the plot lines often feel like they don’t connect well enough. Yes, they their a theme of choices which is fine but before they make that clear, it feels a bit too fragmented.
C: While I definitely agree that times, it feels fragmented, and I get why people felt that but I honestly felt like it’s still trying to bring the same feel as the previous two movies, maybe if they didn’t add the subplot of the Venom symbiote and made it more the conflict between Peter and Harry, we could’ve had it better.
There were many times when I said to myself “Oh yeah, that was in this movie”. It doesn’t all gel together like it should. A good movie should suck you into the story and and a really good story would make you forget you’re only watching a screen.
With this, I was just kind of sitting there watching. I wasn’t really engaged at all like I was with the previous two movies. Some scenes come close like again, Sandman coming to life a few nice moments here and there, like the ending.
But overall, the writing for Spider-Man 3 feels like a collection of scenes strung together. They tried but it just didn’t grab me as a whole like other Spider-Man movies have.
And then there’s the Elephant in the room. You know we had to talk about…Emo Peter, and the dancing scenes.
C: Everyone and their grandma has talked about these moments, and honestly while I definitely can see where they’re coming from, I honestly didn’t mind it. I didn’t mind it when I was 12 seeing this movie when it came out, and I honestly don’t mind it now.
Oddly enough,i agree! Yeah, it’s corny but in a really fun way. It at least makes sense in the story as the Symbiote enhances some of his inhibitions so it figures that he’d go around like he’s cool when he’s not.
It’s not too far off from the Walking on Sunshine montage in 2.
C: But when it comes to the dance scene in the club….It’s a case of severe tonal whiplash, one moment he’s dancing like a scene straight out of a jazzy musical, and next Peter hits MJ and goes to mope on the roof of a church.
Yeah, I agree. That’s where it goes a bit too far. I get why that is there but in execution, it’s really odd. There is a reason Nostalgia Critic declared it the dumbest Spider-Man moment, at the time.
Then we have Amazing Spider-Man 2, the now more infamous example of having too much going on. Having now re-visited the film I can say that, yes it is a problem.
It’s mostly in the middle where things become a bit too fragmented. The flaws I mentioned about 3 appear with things being a tad too jumbled. But honestly…I don’t think it’s a big deal.
For the most part, I think they handle all these elements decently well. For one, there’s actually less going on here for the most part here. This time it’s only two major villains he has to deal with, along with the romance.
Compared to 3, it’s a bit more manageable and they tie them together decently, minus some moments in the mid section..
C: And also the whole important plotline of Peter’s parents that was established in the first movie and was dropped halfway. and had no impact onto the story other than him discovering the tokens and his father’s lab and that’s it.
That I agree was the weakest plotline. It was brought over from the first so it needed to be there on some level, but it is the weakest plotline.
C: Maybe save it and build the mystery up more or maybe the mystery should’ve been solved in the first movie. It just doesn’t have that much of an impact for me, it’s almost like the writers were like “Oh crap! We forgot to continue the mystery of Peter’s parents!”
“Eh, just throw in Peter’s father’s lab, we still need to add more hints of the Sinister Six.”
Oh yeah, that brings us the most infamous part of Amazing 2: The set up for future movies.
C: The problem is that it comes across more like a trailer for future movies.
Now, I’m all for any studio for attempting to do a universe with their franchises, and it all relies on how it’s executed.
In my opinion, Warner Bros. and Legendary Picture’s movies in their shared Monsterverse, Godzilla 2014 and Kong: Skull Island both work as their own movies, and in Kong’s case, saving the buildup after the credits.
Yeah seriously, despite any problems I had with it, people should take advice from Godzilla/Kong on how to set up a universe and still make a solid film. (Wish Warner Bros would get it right in their other universe but ah well)
Amazing 2’s setup for the Sinister Six (along with the inclusion of the Rhino) comes across more like Sony is concerned with making a universe as opposed to making this movie the best it can be.
This is where I majorly disagree. While the Sinister Six setup is indeed pretty forced, I honestly don’t think it’s THAT big of a deal. As Confused Matthew pointed out,at least they mostly save all that crap for the END of the film.
C: True, though I hate to compare to something recent, Homecoming did the buildup more subtly by hinting just the Scorpion and a small mention of his “friends” rather than blatantly going “HEY LOOK! VULTURE’S WINGS! DOC OCK’S ARMS! THE RHINO SUIT! THE SINISTER SIX IS COMING GUYS! AND SO IS THE JUSTICE LEAUGE! (Wait, wrong movie)”
Even with that, The film, as it stands, does tell it’s own story and my opinion, does it pretty well. All the extra crap is saved for after the story is more or less done and it doesn’t interfere with the story too much.
True, it is fragmented in the middle but only the Peter’s parents stuff feels like too much and even then it mostly feels like they tried their. The crap Sony pulled is just some shit icing, which can easily be ignored, at least to me.
Especially compared to other forced attempts like this summer’s own The Mummy.
As a whole, the writing in Amazing 2 works out pretty well. Like any Spider-Man movie, it’s interesting to see Peter go through all this, and the romance really helps tie it all together.
Honestly, the romance is what brings up the film for me. Even when it drags a bit, the nice scenes with Peter and Gwen keep me invested. And it leads to the best part of the movie, the really emotional and well handled ending.
C: Okay, as much as I complain about this movie, the death of Gwen Stacy is done incredibly well. It captures the loss of someone that is dear to your heart and being so close to saving them. And Andrew Garfield is really good in those parts.
Exactly. But this honestly should fail, the same way another certain Comic Book Movie failed when it killed off someone in the 2nd movie.
For one, this actually has the balls to make it stick instead of hinting at their return in the last second. Plus, this character is just a tad more expendable then that one.
And most importantly, I feel they earned it by developing their relationship really well. As we said, you feel their connection so it’s actually soul crushing when she dies.
Plus, it’s not really a Spider-Man movie unless someone tragically dies at the end (or at the start in 1’s case), even Spider-Man 3 gets that! So yeah, the ending really brings the film together for me.
C: I definitely see your point there, and I do think the romance elements work more than the superhero aspect. But I just kind of wish both would balance out a bit more, there are comic book movies that can balance two genres, Logan is a great example by balancing being a comic book movie and a western, or Deadpool being a comic book movie and a dark romantic comedy, if they did give more time to the some of the superhero aspects it could work a bit better for me.
Well, as I said before I think that’s handled decently well too, even if the romance does drive it over the edge.
Spider-Man 3 on the other hand, just leaves me cold. You can tell Sam Rami and the crew tried their hardest, Sony just got in the way. Plus, there’s some general writing flaws I don’t quite think Sony can be totally to blame for.
Spider-Man 3 has some good moments to be sure but it just doesn’t all come together. Amazing Spider-Man 2, even with it’s flaws, feels just a tad more complete to me.
I was more wrapped up in the story and the ending works better because it was only capping off one or two aspects instead of the 3 that the ending of Spider-Man 3 had to wrap up.
As you can tell, I’m giving the final point to Amazing Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 3 tried but I just didn’t feel it, and overall Amazing just pulls of it’s script better to me.
C: If I must choose, I’d go with 3. Sure Amazing 2 has some good moments, but I feel it was a tad too forced with its setup and maybe it needed to save it for the mid-credits like the first movie did.
Yes, 3 is overstuffed and has things that can be silly, but the other two movies are silly and at the very least the story is kept simple and took time for some of the villains to develop.”
I can see your point there. Interesting how both think our losing movie has good moments but overall just didn’t grab us all the way. I see why some would prefer 3 although I am still just a tad baffled Amazing is 2 is seen as the giant failure it was.
But as I’ve said before, I’m slightly glad it didn’t totally well as Sony got way too greedy. I’m glad they worked things out with Marvel and Spidey has a better home now.
C: Now if only Universal Studios can work things out to share the rights of the Hulk with Marvel so we can get a solo Mark Ruffalo movie. But I’m glad that Thor: Ragnarok will be the start of a trilogy of his arc alongside Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers 4.
100 Percent Agreed!
SPONGEY’S WINNER: The Amazing Spider-Man 2
CLAY’S WINNER: Spider-Man 3
In total, Spider-Man 3 got 1 point thanks to that one tie, and Amazing Spider-Man 2 got…all 4. Yeah, pretty clear winner.
SPONGEY’S OVERALL WINNER: The Amazing Spider-Man 2
For Clay it’s the same, but the opposite. Amazing got the 1 point and Spider-Man 3 got all the points, so there you go.
CLAY’S OVERALL WINNER: Spider-Man 3
C: Though despite that I do prefer Spider-Man 3 over Amazing Spider-Man 2, I don’t think the latter is a bad movie, I don’t hate it.
Granted, I personally feel of all the Spider-Man movies it’s by far the weakest, but it doesn’t mean it’s awful.
As mentioned, the action scenes are slick, the score is good (except for some of the dubstep tracks), the effects for the most part are good and Peter and Gwen’s relationship is on point, but I feel that maybe they should’ve kept the focus more on Electro rather than cramming Green Goblin and Rhino in the mix, and not forcefully add in hints of the Sinister Six and maybe do a small scene like at the end of the first movie, it could’ve been better.
But regardless, it’s not the worst movie Marvel has done with their characters, movies like Elektra, Fant4stic and Man-Thing are far worse than anything this movie by a long shot.
I can say the same for Spider-Man 3. As I pretty much said up there, it does plenty right, and they did try, but it just didn’t work for me. I WANTED to like it, especially since I liked Amazing Spider-Man 2 but thought it was just…Average.
I do like Amazing Spider-Man 2 a bit less than I did before, but I still do really like it for all the reasons I said.
C: If I do make any recommendation for anyone who didn’t like or care about 3, I recommend giving the Editor’s Cut a chance, it fixes some scenes and adds deleted ones that probably would’ve made them better.
C: But as I should say, I’m no end all, be all. If you still don’t like Spider-Man 3 and prefer Amazing Spider-Man 2, that’s perfectly fine.
C: It doesn’t make you an idiot, or a horrible person, or “not a real fan”. We’re all different, that’s what makes us unique. You shouldn’t be a pretentious, cynical snob and say someone’s not a “real fan” because they prefer something over what you like.
No matter how good or bad something is relating to this character or anything in general, people are going to have different views on how they see the character. A
And Spider-Man is no exception. Comic book characters are just like any piece of artwork, it’s open to any interpretation, each person will have a preference on how they want Spider-Man. You can choose to accept it or not, but just because you prefer him one way doesn’t mean everyone else has to prefer it also.
Yeah, you said it. I don’t have much to add to that
C: Well, thanks for having me on here, Spongey. We should collab again sometime, maybe a movie review or something.
That would be nice. It was cool having someone else to debate with on these Movies Battles.
C: This is Clayton of ClaytoniumStudios94, check out my reviews and other artwork on deviantART, ( https://claytoniumstudios94.deviantart.com/ ) and I’m signing out!