The Amazing Spider Man 2 (2014)

[lerath666]

That retarded point you were trying to make that doesn't work here? No it went right over your head though.

You misused your own example so poorly you probably never fully understood it to begin with.

What's happening in that **** quality clip is the two people who actually made one of the best movies ever are "raping" childhood memories of that amazing experiance by being the same ones that are hands on destroying the current version of the same character everyone waited 20 years for.

It's not remotely applicable here(short of crying rape like you are) because this is a totally differant set of film makers taking on age old source material. (not a single iconic role born by a specific actor)

Not really, this is essentialy what you're doing

If you're having trouble getting what i'm saying, I'll try again. I could have just as eaisly used the youtube clip of the scene that the indy scene was making a pardoy of. But i was worried of it being questionable, and It was my intent to try an lighten my post with a bit of levity.

My point is sony is trying to whore out spidey, and in so doing rising potential oversaturation of the market with the product. They're banking HEAVILY on this film being both a Critical sucsess as well as a finantial one.
Beyond that, I'm also saying that if marvel got him back Today, and decided to shoe-horn him into Avengers 3, that Marvel would be doing the same thing IN MY OPINION.
You commented that we wouldn't be seeing him on-screen at marvel before 2020 at the earliest, I'm AGREEING with you, AND saying it would be a good thing.

I get that you like this film, I didn't care for it. There is nothing wrong with that. Taste is arbitrairy. You need not be white-knighting it with the voracity you are chosing to use. I'm not attacking you for liking what is unquestionably a BAD film ( and I'm sorry, but it is) And countless others have said why, and given ways that sony might fix it.

"Raping my childhood" is a term overused by people with heavy nostolgia glasses that refuse to accept that things change with the passage of time. Never said i feel that, and for the record, I don't. Sony's hitting some of the right notes with this film, and parts of it work GREAT. LOVE the costume, LOVE the action, Spidey moves like he should, visualy it's stunning. The performance given by Garfield is great. Having his Real life girlfriend play his on-screen girlfriend is BRILLIANT casting, becuase it creates tremendous chemisrty on screen. The problem is that it's all flash, no substance for me. the phrase " two hour trailer" has been pandered about a bit. I tend to agree. That, and the script being writen by a conspiricy nut is making things a little heavy-handed for my personal tastes, but I digress.

Do I want to see this film fail? Not particularly, no.

Would I like to see spidey films made in-house by marvel studios? Yes, Eventualy.
I'd also like to win the lottery, not have to pay my student loans, and live in an 18 bedroom house.
Dosn't mean any of its gonna happen.

I'd just like to see an awesome spidey movey that tells an awesome story. Don't care who makes it.

We haven't had that since Spiderman 2.

 

[lerath666]

appearently, inorder to BREAK EVEN This film needs to gross around 660 Million ( This is the number i'm seeing mentioned by huffpost and time) and appearently the first film needed to make over 610 Mil. So far, neither film has. Not breaking even constitutes a finantial flop.

SOMETIMES being a big critical sucsess, but a finantial flop can lead to a sequel that becomes a finantial sucsess. APPEARENTLY this is what sony was banking on, when they put all their eggs in spideys webbed basket.

 

[DiFabio]

If I only had a photo of DiFabio and Nam.

Well, I did have an image of me in a couple of threads on here. One original and one shopped.

Thank god I deleted them before you got photoshop crazy. Who knows what I could have become in your hands.

 

[Deckard]

Not really, this is essentialy what you're doing View attachment 109225

If you're having trouble getting what i'm saying, I'll try again. I could have just as eaisly used the youtube clip of the scene that the indy scene was making a pardoy of. But i was worried of it being questionable, and It was my intent to try an lighten my post with a bit of levity.

My point is sony is trying to whore out spidey, and in so doing rising potential oversaturation of the market with the product. They're banking HEAVILY on this film being both a Critical sucsess as well as a finantial one.
Beyond that, I'm also saying that if marvel got him back Today, and decided to shoe-horn him into Avengers 3, that Marvel would be doing the same thing IN MY OPINION.
You commented that we wouldn't be seeing him on-screen at marvel before 2020 at the earliest, I'm AGREEING with you, AND saying it would be a good thing.

I get that you like this film, I didn't care for it. There is nothing wrong with that. Taste is arbitrairy. You need not be white-knighting it with the voracity you are chosing to use. I'm not attacking you for liking what is unquestionably a BAD film ( and I'm sorry, but it is) And countless others have said why, and given ways that sony might fix it.

"Raping my childhood" is a term overused by people with heavy nostolgia glasses that refuse to accept that things change with the passage of time. Never said i feel that, and for the record, I don't. Sony's hitting some of the right notes with this film, and parts of it work GREAT. LOVE the costume, LOVE the action, Spidey moves like he should, visualy it's stunning. The performance given by Garfield is great. Having his Real life girlfriend play his on-screen girlfriend is BRILLIANT casting, becuase it creates tremendous chemisrty on screen. The problem is that it's all flash, no substance for me. the phrase " two hour trailer" has been pandered about a bit. I tend to agree. That, and the script being writen by a conspiricy nut is making things a little heavy-handed for my personal tastes, but I digress.

Do I want to see this film fail? Not particularly, no.

Would I like to see spidey films made in-house by marvel studios? Yes, Eventualy.
I'd also like to win the lottery, not have to pay my student loans, and live in an 18 bedroom house.
Dosn't mean any of its gonna happen.

I'd just like to see an awesome spidey movey that tells an awesome story. Don't care who makes it.

We haven't had that since Spiderman 2.

Scarcasam aside, spidey NEEDS to go to bed for a while. no Sony or Marvel studios spiderman till 2020? Sounds like a GREAT idea.

KOTCS raped existing memories by killing Marcus and Henry. They are dead. Sean Connery in The Last Crusade's character is dead now. And Indy's kid is forever Shia Lebeof. Forever. You can't fix that ever.

What I'm saying is that analogy, none of that applies to these movies nor do they in any way affect past movies or current comic books.

Every studio is whoring out their characters. Iron Man is the biggest whore in the comic book world. They all need to make money. I would agree that these movies aren't perfect but they are not bad. That's nonsense and I don't see it as overwhelmingly negative. 7.5 on RT and IMDB. 7/10 is bad? That's great for a comic book movie. If 73% like it, that's 7/10 people.

 

[Chapter 2099]

I still need to go see this movie again. Overall, I was really happy with it. Still think it's the best Spider-Man movie yet. Not perfect. But really darn good.

 

[jye4ever]

Well, I did have an image of me in a couple of threads on here. One original and one shopped.

Thank god I deleted them before you got photoshop crazy. Who knows what I could have become in your hands.

I would've dressed you up as a Pikachu.

 

[Silrian]

KOTCS raped existing memories by killing Marcus and Henry. They are dead. Sean Connery in The Last Crusade's character is dead now. And Indy's kid is forever Shia Lebeof. Forever. You can't fix that ever.

What I'm saying is that analogy, none of that applies to these movies nor do they in any way affect past movies or current comic books.

Every studio is whoring out their characters. Iron Man is the biggest whore in the comic book world. They all need to make money. I would agree that these movies aren't perfect but they are not bad. That's nonsense and I don't see it as overwhelmingly negative. 7.5 on RT and IMDB. 7/10 is bad? That's great for a comic book movie. If 73% like it, that's 7/10 people.

If you want to in any way stay consistent with your own reasoning you should really stop saying Man of Steel is a bad film as well then:
MoS: 7,3 IMDb, RT: 76% audience, 3.9, 56% critics, 6.2
ASM2: 7,5 IMDb, RT: 73% audience, 3.8, 54% critics, 5,9

 

[DiFabio]

ASM2 and MoS are both bad movies.

The only difference? The way ASM2 Spider-Man is portrayed is a helluva a lot more enjoyable than MoS Supes. Spider-Man makes the movie and even transcends it, Superman is bogged down in the bleakness.

 

[Silrian]

Honestly, if you think MoS is solely bleakness that says more about you than the film to me.

Regardless, it still doesn't justify Deckard's argument against Lerath. If he takes those statistics as a measure to judge whether a film is good or bad, either both are good or both are bad. That effin simple.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

I come into this thread and I just feel like that happy guy who doesn't fit in because I was entertained immensely by ASM2. Hell, ebe Man of Steel, but I never read a superman comicbook a day in my life so Iwas just enjoying the fight scenes and seeing the guy from Boardwalk Empire kick some ass.

 

[lerath666]

Personaly, I found both bad, for different reasons

 

[jye4ever]

ASM2 and MoS are both bad movies.

The only difference? The way ASM2 Spider-Man is portrayed is a helluva a lot more enjoyable than MoS Supes. Spider-Man makes the movie and even transcends it, Superman is bogged down in the bleakness.

Yup, thats what made me like ASM2.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

appearently, inorder to BREAK EVEN This film needs to gross around 660 Million ( This is the number i'm seeing mentioned by huffpost and time) and appearently the first film needed to make over 610 Mil. So far, neither film has. Not breaking even constitutes a finantial flop.

I'd define a flop as losing tons of money. Breaking even or losing a little certainly isn't as bad as losing tens of millions.

 

[lerath666]

ASM2 and MoS are both bad movies.

The only difference? The way ASM2 Spider-Man is portrayed is a helluva a lot more enjoyable than MoS Supes. Spider-Man makes the movie and even transcends it, Superman is bogged down in the bleakness.

Yup, thats what made me like ASM2.

I can agree with those sentiments. Nothing wrong with an entertaining popcorn film, or liking a bad movie ( Hell, i enjoy bayformers, and the PT. But i know they're terrible films ) with some great action scenes.

 

[lerath666]

I'd define a flop as losing tons of money. Breaking even or losing a little certainly isn't as bad as losing tens of millions.

this raises an interesting point. breaking even means you made NO money on your investment. you spent 660 million dollars making and promoting a picture. and it only made back 660 million on it. then it's still a failed buisness venture. you're no worse off than when you started, but you still got nowhere. if you had NOT made the movie, you'd still be where you were before you began, and have not spent time accomplishing what amounts to nothing.

But what if instead of breaking even, you make back say, 600 million. this means that you LOST 60 Million dollars ( tens of millions, as you said )

so for you, at what point is it a monetary flop.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I come into this thread and I just feel like that happy guy who doesn't fit in because I was entertained immensely by ASM2. Hell, ebe Man of Steel, but I never read a superman comicbook a day in my life so Iwas just enjoying the fight scenes and seeing the guy from Boardwalk Empire kick some ass.

 

[guy66657]

Spider-Man is so much better on his own. Plus he loves being a lone hero, and rejected the Avengers 4 times. I think he's fine for a team up from time to time though.

 

[bransen2099]

this raises an interesting point. breaking even means you made NO money on your investment. you spent 660 million dollars making and promoting a picture. and it only made back 660 million on it. then it's still a failed buisness venture. you're no worse off than when you started, but you still got nowhere. if you had NOT made the movie, you'd still be where you were before you began, and have not spent time accomplishing what amounts to nothing.

But what if instead of breaking even, you make back say, 600 million. this means that you LOST 60 Million dollars ( tens of millions, as you said )

so for you, at what point is it a monetary flop.

Not sure about this, but breaking even doesnt mean much because, im not sure but promoting the movie isnt in the movies budget is it? Thats a lot of money there too

 

[lerath666]

Not sure about this, but breaking even doesnt mean much because, im not sure but promoting the movie isnt in the movies budget is it? Thats a lot of money there too

My understanding is the 660 includes promoting the film. ASM2 had a reported filming budget of something like 225 Mill. A 100ish million dollar advertising budget. then there are other hidden costs of production and distrabution. all this assumes that they are not lying and reporting lower amounts than they are actualy spending ( which, according to a handful of holywood insiders is a common practice to help appease the upper management) which we will never know for certian.

 

[bransen2099]

My understanding is the 660 includes promoting the film. ASM2 had a reported filming budget of something like 225 Mill. A 100ish million dollar advertising budget. then there are other hidden costs of production and distrabution. all this assumes that they are not lying and reporting lower amounts than they are actualy spending ( which, according to a handful of holywood insiders is a common practice to help appease the upper management) which we will never know for certian.

I brought that up because of John Carter, it made more than its budget, but its a bomb, not because it was bad but it actually needed $600 mil to break even compared to its $250 mil budget.

So in this case, breaking even is covering all costs for the movie