Spider-Man 2

[WarLocke]

Go see this movie now. I just got back from it. Wow.

When I first heard about who the villain was in this one (no spoilers here) I thought, 'no way, that won't work in a movie!' Boy, was I wrong. It worked even better than our favorite Green Meanie in the first. It was awesome, humbling, and creepy all at once.

The writers and/or director made some choices I wouldn't have (remember the deleted scene in the first movie with the huge spiderweb spanning the WTC? ugh) but overall the movie just rocked. I also really liked how they set up the third movie's villain. Drama/angst++! :ph34r:

I wish I had followed Spidey's comics more closely, so I'd know if some of the stuff from the movie was new, or actually took place 'canonicly'. Ah well.

[Munkay]

All I have to say is for the 200 million dollar pricetag they paid to create the sequel. . .

I'm pleased at the result :)

-Munk

[TaiDaishar]

I gave it considerable thought if I want to see Spiderman 2 but when put up against Shrek 2 it's out of his league.

[Mithrandir]

I was very pleased with Spiderman 2 - it was an excellent movie and I walked away with all my hopes and desires fully satiated :) I can't believe we have to wait until 2007 for Spiderman 3 however... I need more Spidey now I tell ya!

It's pretty obvious who they've set up for the next movie, of course, but I had a slight musing of another couple villains that they may be subtely trying to sneak in for the next movie...




*SPOILERS*

The symbiote that would eventually go on to create Venom was from space (during the Secret Wars). The movie seemingly kept trying to make a point that John Jameson was an astronaut and had been to the moon. He also now has the motivation to really, really hate Peter Parker... perhaps something came back with him on his trip? Granted, John Jameson isn't Eddie Brock (the identity of Venom is the comic books) but the groundwork is there and Sam Reimy hardly seems shy about changing the origins of the characters (and he shouldn't be, some things just don't work as well in the movies and I've been rather pleased with the way he creates the villains so far). In any case, just a little thought I had ;)

Of course, then there's the obvious one: Peter's teacher in the movie is Dr. Curt Connors... also the identity of the Lizard in the comic books.

So Hobgoblin, Venom, and Lizard verse Spidey in Spiderman 3? :) Maybe Doc Ock didn't die (it was indeed pretty ambigious) and comes back to help out Spiderman? Ahh, so many possibilities.

[Chameleon]

So Hobgoblin, Venom, and Lizard verse Spidey in Spiderman 3?  Maybe Doc Ock didn't die (it was indeed pretty ambigious) and comes back to help out Spiderman? Ahh, so many possibilities.

I dearly hope that they producers/writers/etc. do not go with 3 or even 2 villians. Simply because, what makes a hero great is a great villian to defeat. This is what went wrong with the Batman series of movies; #1 awsome (1 villian), #2 so-so (1 villian, 1 both good & bad), #3 and #4 terrible (2 villians). With only 1 villian, there is time for the audiance to get to now and loath the villian and thus want our hero to defeat him, with multiple villians, the screen time get divided up too thinly and the plot, character development, suffer terribly.

[Walkiry]

I have to disagree with you a bit. IMO, what went wrong with Batman were two things: Michael Keaton (or lack of thereof) and Tim Burton (and... well). Honestly, Val Kilmer or George Clooney are not on the same league (not to talk about the rest of the cast, which does more harm than good as the movies add up), and Joel didn't 'get' the character quite as well as Tim did.

Batman Returns, I think, was quite good, although I won't try to dispute if #1 was better or not. Kim Basinger vs. Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken vs. Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito... very tough decisions ^_^ The Batman/Joker thing is really well done, and the plot is more involved in the second one.

[WarLocke]

IMO, what went wrong with Batman were two things: Michael Keaton (or lack of thereof)

I hope I'm not the only person who agrees with this. As far as I'm concerned, Keaton is Batman - neither Kilmer nor Clooney even came close to fitting into the role.

Similarly, I will never be able to think of Doc Ock again without visualizing him as Molina. He pulled off the character perfectly - took a frumpy guy that looked like Velma (lol Scooby Doo) in a white coat, and made him a believable, deep, and tragic character. Molina is Doc Ock.

Although, it's interesting to contemplate other options. How about Shatner as Doc Ock? I can see the interaction with his arms now: "Listen... to-me-now! NO! You... listen - tomeNOW!"

Yeah, I suck at doing Kevin Pollack doing Shatner. :P

[Mithrandir]

I didn't really like Keaton, he just didn't seem like Bruce Wayne personified since he was so scrawny and was sporting the slightly-balding look. Don't get me wrong, he was the best Batman (and Batman Returns was the best Batman movie... I loved Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny DeVito in their respective roles) but he still wasn't "that" great. Val Kilmer had the best potential as a Batman (see: The Saint) but just never quite was there. George Clooney was just horrible.

I'm really psyched for 'Batman Begins' though. I will forever regard Christopher Nolan as sweet just because of Memento :) Then with a cast like Christian Bale, Ken Watanabe (Katsumoto in the Last Samurai), Kate Holmes, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Michael Caine - how can this movie now be a winner? Even better, Nolan the movie is apparently being treated as completely outside of the previous 4 movies... which is also outstanding.

I kinda question the new batmobile however.


I have to disagree with the belief that multiple villains bogs a movie down. 3 would probably be too many, but 2 villains just makes the situation of the hero seem all the more hopeless - and thus is more exciting.

[LochnarITB]

I kinda question the new batmobile however.

Kinda? Boo! Hiss! That is ugly. I can't see how that fits into the Batman motif. It looks like something you would see in a postapocalyptic movie. It looks like it was pieced together out of a bunch of left over junk. I wondered why they didn't show any shots of the front and then I realized half the pictures were of the front. Ick.

[LiquidDamage]

I saw it last night too. Liked it, very similar in style to the first movie, though it felt a little ham-fisted in the delivery of its messages. Less is more, IMHO.

It did finally do some of those things we always scream about in these types of movies: "Why don't they just DO it, and let us see the repercussions instead of having it not happen due to some timely intervention?" Unfortunately, it did it three times. Once would have sufficed.

I predict an influx of Spider-Man clones in City of Heroes.

Speaking of which, Warlocke, why do you not return my calls... er... PMs? ;_;

[Drasca]

What's the name of the landlord's daughter?!? The tall lanky blonde with the big blue eyes and shy girl next door with a crush on you demeanor.

What was her character name? and if you got it, the actress's name? I looked through the credits at the theatre and recognized nothing. Little help? I can't recall the character name for the life of me.

[LiquidDamage]

Mageina Tovah played Ursula.

I recognized her too, from the Shield. Surprised I don't remember her from Buffy, though I think I only saw that episode once, and it was 2 years ago or so.

[Drasca]

Mageina Tovah played Ursula.

Thanks! She had a passing resemblence to this girl I knew. Ok, ex gf. Now I see I was simply out of my mind.

This is not a cue to use the WTF Panda macro.

[WarLocke]

This is not a cue to use the WTF Panda macro.

(PS: WTF)

[klaptonic]

The symbiote that would eventually go on to create Venom was from space (during the Secret Wars). The movie seemingly kept trying to make a point that John Jameson was an astronaut and had been to the moon. He also now has the motivation to really, really hate Peter Parker... perhaps something came back with him on his trip? Granted, John Jameson isn't Eddie Brock (the identity of Venom is the comic books) but the groundwork is there and Sam Reimy hardly seems shy about changing the origins of the characters (and he shouldn't be, some things just don't work as well in the movies and I've been rather pleased with the way he creates the villains so far). In any case, just a little thought I had ;)

Of course, then there's the obvious one: Peter's teacher in the movie is Dr. Curt Connors... also the identity of the Lizard in the comic books.

So Hobgoblin, Venom, and Lizard verse Spidey in Spiderman 3? :) Maybe Doc Ock didn't die (it was indeed pretty ambigious) and comes back to help out Spiderman? Ahh, so many possibilities.

Lemme see if I can remember that far back....

John Jameson came back from the Moon and started turning into Man-Wolf (a werewolf - duh)! Though I can see them changing the story around to fit Venom (or even Carnage, liked him better).
Did anyone notice the Doctor Conner reference in the first movie. Once Peter had moved to New York, Harry asked him about his job and Peter informed him that Doctor Conner had fired him for being late. That reference had me expecting The Lizard to be in this movie.

I like the one villain approach, but I also like when the movie starts with an action packed fight scene where our hero is whipping on some baddie before starting the new storyline.

Vilians I would like to see include : juggernaut, rhino, hobgoblin, jackel or vulture.
a good minor villain to mop up with at the start of a movie would be: mysterio, shocker, sandman, scorpion etc...

[Yrrek]

*splatter* .....lose my lunch. :(

[Munkay]

A few more of the new Batmobile (From the official website)

The batmobile has me a bit sceptical, though all in all I must admit the idea of a new series, closer to the comic book is very appealing to me. The cast they have seems to be the best to carry out a new line. Here's to hoping the best for the series!

-Munk

Edit: Fixed link

Edit Two: ***Possible Spoilers*** I found a copy of a supposed script for Batman Begins here I've been sick and bed ridden for the last 48 hours, and whether this script is authentic or not, its a very entertaining read for any batman lover. (From what I can glean though, this script contains every scene that can be found in every 'on set' picture available so far . . . so it just may be the real thing)

[[wcip]Angel]

I dearly hope that they producers/writers/etc. do not go with 3 or even 2 villians. Simply because, what makes a hero great is a great villian to defeat. This is what went wrong with the Batman series of movies; #1 awsome (1 villian), #2 so-so (1 villian, 1 both good & bad), #3 and #4 terrible (2 villians). With only 1 villian, there is time for the audiance to get to now and loath the villian and thus want our hero to defeat him, with multiple villians, the screen time get divided up too thinly and the plot, character development, suffer terribly.

I disagree.

What makes a good villain, is a villain who's believable; one you can sympathise with; one who is acting out of real ambition and real motivation instead of him being - quote - Evil® - unquote. "The Rock" is the very finest example of a film where the villain is written to perfection, in my opinion. Ed Harris as General Hummel will always be remembered as the most real villain of a film. (Other than Michael Douglas' "D-FENS" in Falling Down, of course, which is just brilliant.)

I love movies where you sympathise more with the villain than with the hero, because you can understand and appreciate their motives. I don't like this cut and dry black and white evil vs good stuff. (*cough*vice president in "The day after tomorrow"*cough*), and I can't stand it when film-makers take a baseball-bat and bash our brains in with these clear-cut scenarios of who the villain and who the hero is. I want grey areas with both the hero and the villain having both evil and righteous elements to them. *This* is what makes a villain truly spectacular, in my opinion.

Now, reasons as to why Spiderman 2 blew chunks: (disclaimer; I have not seen Spiderman1)

Two main reasons

1. Romantic tripe.

2. Illogical scenes.

I hate movies. Honestly, I can't think of more than 10 great movies that have been made in the last 20 years. I've already mentioned Falling down. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown also qualify. "The Lord of the rings" saga was epic and "Fail safe" is the most exciting 90 minutes I've ever seen on television. (Also kudos to the staff and cast for their live performance! Truly amazing.) Why do I hate movies? For a variety of reasons, but one being that there are no longer movies which don't include some sort of romantic aspect with these "Friends"-like "I love you/I love you too"-mushy sugar-sweet "I think I might throw up now" horrible, horrible scenes. My eyes hurt, I've been rolling them so much tonight. There were times when I wanted to yell out "Shut the hell up, you tart!", but seeing as I'm such a shy young gentleman brimming with empathy, I chose not to ruin everyone else's experience in the cinema, just because my screwed up taste in films conflict with what I'm currently being tormented with.

Yes, Mr. Script Writer; I understand that he loves her and that he knows he can't be with her. I kind of figured it out for myself, but after having heard it 4-5 times now in these drawn-out, mushy puppydog-eyes-scenes, I am now painfully aware of it. Could you please move the hell on? I swear, if they'd cut the romantic tripe out of this crapfest, we'd

i. Be left with one fine movie*
ii. Have more than enough time to explore Evil Green Lantern and his revenge-thing.

* Stipulating that the "illogical scenes" also would be fixed

"What do you mean, [wcip]Angel, when you say "illogical scenes"?

Well, seeing as I left my pen and pad at home, I didn't get to note down all the horrible stuff they expected us to swallow, but here are some examples

1. In the scene where the female protagonist kisses her fiancé in similar style to what happened on an episode of The Simpsons (and also in Spiderman1), the charming young gentleman asks her a question after the kiss. What does Mr. Director do? Well, in order to tell the audience "She's thinking about sexy Spidey!!!" we do a nice little zoom into her, leaving the would-be husband off-screen. But he doesn't just leave the screen. He leaves the room. He is no longer on the sofa next to her. He does not recognise her non-response to the question nor her sad expression. Why wasn't there a "Hey, didn't you hear my question" or "What's the matter", or even "Hey, what are you thinking?"

2. In the scene where the female protagonist is standing in front of a mirror in her bridal dress looking like she's about to cry, the woman giving her the flowers doesn't see that the bride standing right next to her (!!) is almost in tears! We know what's going on, because we see her face and we know what she's thinking. The lady next to her probably doesn't know what she's thinking, but she's certainly seeing that the bride she's preparing is not prepared at all. It is evident for us that she doesn't want to get married, therefore it should have been evident for the woman standing next to her! But alas, logics do not fly in the same dimension as big spidery things do.

3. "Carry the desk, but don't strain yourself." said the aunt to Spiderman in plain clothes. She expects this little boy to carry an entire desk himself? Without straining himself?! Speaking of desks, how the hell did Aunt Deskie get the bloody thing out in the yard anyway? Did 9-year old Henry do it? Perhaps Aunt Deskie bulldozed over him as well with a 10-minute soliloquy about heroes and all sorts of gobby, self-righteous garbage which inspired him to pick up the 300-pound desk and carry it down the stairs and into the yard?

If I weren't suffering from Altzheimers, I'd give more examples, as I'm sadly too certain that there are many many more I've forgotten.

Remove these; remove the sickening displays of "love", and you're stuck with a solid movie. The way Spiderman 2 is now, it's pretty damn worthless. How this thing managed to get into IMDBs top 250 is one of the world's greatest mysteries, along the lines with the popularity of Britney Spears and the magnitude and range of human stupidity.

[Minionman]

Angel]Why do I hate movies? For a variety of reasons, but one being that there are no longer movies which don't include some sort of romantic aspect with these "Friends"-like "I love you/I love you too"-mushy sugar-sweet "I think I might throw up now" horrible, horrible scenes. My eyes hurt, I've been rolling them so much tonight. There were times when I wanted to yell out "Shut the hell up, you tart!", but seeing as I'm such a shy young gentleman brimming with empathy, I chose not to ruin everyone else's experience in the cinema, just because my screwed up taste in films conflict with what I'm currently being tormented with.

Nope, your movie opinions are perfectly fine. I hate romance in movies and cringe when these scenes come on. Your right about how every movie has romantic crap in it, nowadays movies have romance because (sarcastic mode) there has to be romance in movies. Movie without romance, what is this strange concept (end sarcastic mode).

I like romance only when it's really fake and/or being made fun of, aka Naked gun movies and starship troopers.

[[wcip]Angel]

It's not that I'm some sick individual who don't think love is a beautiful thing, it's just very few (if any!) movies can successfully illustrate its brilliance without making it corny or just embarrassing. All movies try, and I can't think of one which has actually succeeded.

I *did* however, enjoy the Aragon/Éomer-thing in The Two Towers.