spiderman 2

[JohnT]

It's looking like this film won't top its predecessor in grosses, nor Shrek 2, and it is possible that it won't beat Passion of the Christ. Last week it grossed $35million, for a total of $313mil, and if the trend continues where it loses 1/2 of it's grosses each succeeding week, will be very hard pressed to break $375,000,000 (POTC is at $370mil).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
Spider-Man 1 was the best superhero movie ever.

I have heard some people say that Spider-Man 2 will be the next "Empire Strikes Back". It's score at Rotten Tomatoes is genuinely intimidating right now. I can't wait to see it tommorrow.

Some people also endorse communism

Oh wait.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
so he was complicated

it is actually a good thing

Unclear, inconsistent character != complicated

Unclear, inconsistent character = crappy writing

[Boris Godunov]

SM2 was fun, certainly an enjoyable movie.

But greatest comic book movie ever? No way. Batman was better, for one thing. SM2 definitely suffered from some big flaws, chief among them an uncompelling and really unthreatening villain. Granted, Spider-Man has weak villains in general. But it felt like Doc Ock was just a minor nuisance, and he really didn't make much of an impact. Molina's portrayal was great, far superior to DeFoe's scenery-chewing in SM1, but he didn't have much to work with. I mean, they could have played up what happened to his wife so much--but it was never mentioned again.

I'm still wondering how Doc Ock could waltz back to his secret lair without being noticed/followed. Had the writers never seen a helicopter chase on "COPS?" And those are just shirtless hillbillies--we're talking about tailing a guy who's stomping around on 4 huge metal tentacles!

[Imran Siddiqui]

SM2 was better than Batman 1. Though Nicholsen as the Joker was awesome.

[Zero]

Originally posted by JohnT
If it is twice as good as the original, it will rise to the level of mediocrity. That first movie was bad - and by that I mean horrible. Bad script, bad F/X, bad acting, bad costumes. Just bad, bad, bad. The sort of movie that was so bad, I actually rented it twice just to show my wife how bad it was.

Again, if this movie is as twice as good, it will raise to the level of mediocrity.

agreed. both are bad except at least 1 was a good movie for comic book fans. 2 just sucked.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
SM2 was better than Batman 1. Though Nicholsen as the Joker was awesome.

Once again, you utter a completely ridiculous statement. 2+2=5 again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because you can't accept that SM2 was a better movie than Batman was (by a decent amount) doesn't mean you have to display your ignorance all across this thread .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just because you can't accept that SM2 was a better movie than Batman

Why should I accept what categorically is untrue?

Batman had better atmosphere, a better villain, a better story arc and even better character development. SM2 wasn't terrible, but it wasn't that good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

SM2 had a better backdrop (it's New York was better than Batman's Gotham), a more realistic superhero story (though that is Spiderman's biggest strength), and much better action scenes. I can't imagine how you can claim better character development! Bruce Wayne doesn't hold a candle to how Peter Parker evolved.

Hell, even Ebert calls it the best Superhero flick since Superman 1.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
SM2 had a better backdrop (it's New York was better than Batman's Gotham),

Are you kidding? I live in NY, and Batman's Gotham felt more real than SM's NY.

a more realistic superhero story (though that is Spiderman's biggest strength),

Realistic? Let's see...Batman--no supernatural strength or powers. Spiderman--a "radioactive" spider bites him and he has super strength. Realistic?

and much better action scenes.

SM2 had some good action scenes, but these aren't the be-all and end-all of a movie.

I can't imagine how you can claim better character development! Bruce Wayne doesn't hold a candle to how Peter Parker evolved.

Let's see...how about the scene where Peter Parker completely stood aside as he watched a kid get beat up by thugs? How is this good character development? I'm not a superhero, and I would even do something about it. All he had to do was call the cops. But he did NOTHING. That made him rotten.

Bruce Wayne had a wonderful character arc. His motivation was clear, and there was no doubt about what he would do or where he was going. Parker's development wasn't bad, but could have been much better, especially considering the cheesy bit with him missing the play and the over-the-top sillyness of the James Franco plot

Hell, even Ebert calls it the best Superhero flick since Superman 1.

And who says Ebert is a great critic? He gave Titanic 4 stars. Yeah, I take his word on films as gospel...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you kidding? I live in NY, and Batman's Gotham felt more real than SM's NY.

It's a SUPERHERO story. Better backdrop doesn't mean 'realistic' because in the real world you don't you have people with mutant powers, people from Krypton, etc.

Realistic? Let's see...Batman--no supernatural strength or powers. Spiderman--a "radioactive" spider bites him and he has super strength. Realistic?

Yeah, realistic. Bruce Wayne is millionaire businessman by day and then has enough time at night to go out and fight crime? And he can still make all of his functions? On the other hand Peter Parker is in danger of failing school, losing jobs, always tired and run down because being a superhero would seem to dig into real life unless you saw it has a part time job.

SM2 had some good action scenes, but these aren't the be-all and end-all of a movie.

They are a major part of it.

how about the scene where Peter Parker completely stood aside as he watched a kid get beat up by thugs? How is this good character development?

What, did you turn your brain off before you see movies? He stood aside because that was the point where he gave up being Spiderman because it was too draining, too demanding. Later on he realises that he has their great responsibilty and CANNOT step aside. The standing aside and watching the kid getting beaten up was much more important to the character developement of Spiderman than any scene was in Batman, which had very little character development at all. You said, his motivation was clear... where is the character DEVELOPMENT.

And who says Ebert is a great critic?

A great number of people. I know I'd trust him over you.