Ok this movie is not that great

Ok this movie is not that great.
>Doc Ock was driven mad by his raptor tentacles and became a gruff voiced trenchcoat wearing edgy guy
No.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=I-qMBS1frkM
m.youtube.com/watch?v=hO0FkFH6vy8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you're fucking gay

wtf I love homecoming now

> YFW finally, after 13 years, justice is finally served and this movie put in its place

God bless you, OP. Will you craft a video essay elaborating on this analysis?

Wtf I love Disney now?

First of all, Fuck you.

Second,it was 2014, Edgy was still OK.

Third: being driven mad by the accident was literally what happened in the comics. Or didn't you realize he's literally talking to himself, like a man talking to his own hand?

ITT: retarded OPs

>2014
>it's okay if it's retarded because the comics did it
I like Spider-Man 2, but pretending it was flawless is silly.

>MCU Faggot detected Delete. Delete. Delete.

This move captured the emotional, drama, & psychological part of spiderman just like in the comics. Fact.

What no nothing clowns don't know is that 87% of spidermans greatest stories have always been filled with Peter dealing with adult life situations. And this movie(whole trilogy) captured that. Fully.

Fact.

Not really.

No Spider-Man movies have been good, period.

wow a comic book movie thats fun and has a fun villian with fun fights and fun dialogue what a crock of shit I want to wax philosophical when I watch my childrens comic book movies

>le fun xD

>You want door fix, Man of Spiders? Yes, I know these things you do, I learn how to find many secrets in old country. You will not pay rent? This is fair. We will take rent in other ways. When I was in old country, in Bosnia, my friends and I... we do things to women. Terrible things, make them ugly women who will never be loved. Your friends, redhead girl and science girl... they will beg me to stop, as my men and I rain alternating blows of ejaculating and fists upon them. And when they are broken, Man of Spiders, when they are nothing more than shells... you will know the rent is paid.


>For this month

jesus fucking christ Raimi

>Remember that train fight? Yeah that was pretty cool..

One forced Sup Forums meme later...

>TRULY BEST COMIC MOVIE EVER

youtube.com/watch?v=I-qMBS1frkM


This is literally the single best comedic moment of any superhero film ever. Joss Whedon quippy bullshit doesn't even come close to this level of meta humor

bet OP likes the X-Men movies

>dcucks mad a superhero movie made 13 years ago is infinitely better than JL

>Oh, you're sad because a girl at your high-school doesn't like you back? Don't tell me you have it hard because you're a pathetic kissless virgin. You can act sad when you have to leave behind the lady-boy you fell in love with and made passionate steamy love to in a collapsing bamboo shack, just like I did. When I was your age, I left school to bullseye gooks from a helicopter in the middle of some god forsaken jungle. I fried so many slopes, they named a brand of rice after me. You think I felt good about firebombing his chink village and watching our fuck-hut burn to the ground? We were going to build our lives together there, Peter! You know what? Fuck you. Get the fuck out of my car.

Raimi may have gone too far in some places

OH NO

>In regard to the filming of the rape scene, Maguire said, When I wanted to do the rape scene, I explained to [Kirsten Dunst] that I was going to hit her and rape her. There was no emotional relationship between us, because I had put a clause in all the women's contracts stating that they would not make love with Spider-Man. We had never talked to each other. I knew nothing about her. We went to the desert with two other people: the photographer and Raimi. No one else. I said, 'I'm not going to rehearse. There will be only one take because it will be impossible to repeat. Roll the cameras only when I signal you to.' Then I told her, 'Pain does not hurt. Hit me.' And she hit me. I said, 'Harder.' And she started to hit me very hard, hard enough to break a rib... I ached for a week. After she had hit me long enough and hard enough to tire her, I said, 'Now it's my turn. Roll the cameras.' And I really... I really... I really raped her. And she screamed."[1]

And all for a deleted scene that can only be found on the special edition blu ray boxset, jesus Raimi

Jesus Chirst Raimi

The only good thing about this movie was Alfred Molina being a capable actor. Everything else is just as bad as the previous and following movie.
>potatoface actors everywhere
>that terrible spider-man costume
>organic webs
>can't use organic webs cause I'm sad
>spider-man loses his mask for the millionth time just so babyface Tobey can get his screentime again
>Tobey's braaap face when he stops the train
>Jesus Pose because he totally offered himself for those train commuters you guys
>us New Yorkers amirite?
>le camp XD
Only reason anyone still likes this is cause it came out when they were children so they have a nostalgiaboner for it. It's objectively a terrible movie.

back to rebdit kid

>It's objectively a terrible movie.

why would you take the time typing out all those "points" if you were just gonna end it on bullshit like this that cancels out whatever it was you were trying to say?

Let me guess you're a MCUFaggot that think there are no good comicbook movies outside shit MCU.

MCU chode chokers are hilariously retarded.

You could at least try bringing up a counterpoint.

Still better than any of the Mousevel films.

>>potatoface actors everywhere
>that terrible spider-man costume
>organic webs
>can't use organic webs cause I'm sad
These are not points, so there can be no counterpoints.

i dont need to you invalidated your, what could laughably be referred to as, opinions

You're using that meme wrong. You would be the redditor in the situation, newfag.

So you agree these are bad things about the movie? Good.

>I have no argument
>better act smug and dismissive

No, I agree they're your baseless opunions.

You keep asking for arguments when you've offered no, only opinions.

>That half hour in the middle of the movie where Spider-Man isn't Spider-Man anymore and has to learn to become Spider-Man all over again.

Really? We just sat through his fucking origin in the first movie and now we have to wait and watch him relearn being Spider-Man all over again in the middle of the second movie? This movie IS called "Spider-Man 2" isn't it? Would be nice if it had more fucking Spider-Man in it.

Why wasnt the movie over the moment spiderman, with his super stength, punched doc ock in his normal flabby scientist face? Why is doctor octopus even a threat in comics, does he have super powers to withstand bullets and punches? His gimmick is pretty dumb all things considered. He shouldn't even be able to lift anything big with the tentacles, his spine should snap in half supporting the tentacles lifting like a car.

>Why is doctor octopus even a threat in comics
Try reading them before posting on Sup Forums from your home board.

Doctor Octopus defeated the Hulk in the 90s by flinging him over the horizon with his tentacles. He's pretty strong, soiboi.

Alright, but I haven't seen any arguments for why the movie is supposedly good either.

Well Spider-Man (hyphen) pulls his punches so he isn't constantly exploding peoples skulls with a single punch. Only when he's against a proper threat and not some street thug does he really do everything he's capable of.

its fun and not some morose piece of shit that's trying to make some stupid metaphor about the human condition or god or something

You're a faggot and a massive disappointment to your parents, period.

This kind of thing annoys me so much. The CG itself isn't terrible (though it isn't great either), but why even use it for this scene? This scene could have been almost entirely practical and it would have looked a lot better. Just hire some parkour guy and this could have actually been cool.

I thought the same when I watched it came out. Goblin was kind of a victim too. I didn't like that.

>Understands the core of the character more than any other Spiderman film so far.
No, quips are not the core of Spiderman's character. Trying to impress Tony Stark is not the core of Spiderman's character. The burden of responsibility, obligation, sacrifice, and guilt are the core of the character. This is Peter's essential struggle throughout the film.

>Molina's Doc Ock is the best iteration of the character.
Sympathetic but still intimidating. Charismatic but still misunderstood. Visually perfect. Great thematic foil to Peter's struggles throughout the film. (Peter sacrifices his dreams to do the right thing and accept responsibility for his actions, Otto refuses to accept that the accident which killed his wife was his fault and instead becomes obsessed with realizing his dream at all costs). And no, the arms are not "controlling" him. The arms represent his id overtaking his ego; a literal manifestation of his genius driving him mad with pride and power.

>Great cast
Stop this meme that Tobey is a bad actor. He is a good actor and this has been proven time and time again. Not just in the SM movies, he has plenty of great performances under his belt. He is a somewhat awkward-looking, autistic seeming guy but this is fitting for the character. Raimi has said in interviews he wanted to cast someone who wasn't movie-star goodlooking and who could capture the awkward loneliness of a character like Peter. Tobey does this. Rosemary Harris is literally the perfect Aunt May. Dunst as MJ is up for debate honestly but I think she does a good job. Franco is a good Harry; kind of a douchebag but still sort of like him.

>Movie is fun but not filled with Marvel-tier quips
Unlike Marvel Studios, SM2 has fun while still taking itself seriously. It doesn't undercut every dramatic scene with a dumb joke. There is actual pathos in this film. None of that "LMAO superheroes sure are dumb right?"

(cont.)

This. Every word of this.

I honestly agree. SM2 has too many contrivances in the plot and disregarded the themes set up in the first movie.
SM1 holds up way better.

(cont.)
>Distinct and stylish direction
What the fuck did Jon Watts bring to Homecoming? I had to look up who directed it just now because he's just some shmuck Marvel grabbed up to be their workman. The movie could have been made by anyone. I can't remember a single memorable shot or stylistic choice. It's all just Marvel's generic house-style. Contrast that with one of the most kinetic and stylistically recognizable directors of the 80s and 90s, Sam Raimi. The film is actually interesting and visually distinct.

>Some of the best action scenes of any superhero film
I think this goes without saying. Even people that don't like the film can't deny that the train sequence is one of the best action scenes of the 2000s. ASM movies and Homecoming have murky, dull, cgi action set-pieces that are completely forgettable.

>Quaint and cozy
Some people actually view this films cheese and camp as a negative and I guess this is a matter of personal opinion but I think its great. It works perfectly in the context of the film and it's legitimately funny. I crack up every time I see that dumb freeze frame on Tobey's face at the end of the raindrops montage. I get the sense some people don't realize that its supposed to be funny. Obviously its goofy but that's the whole point. Not sure why some people think shit like "Dance off bro!" is acceptable humor but Raimi's cheese isn't. The movie isn't dour and self-serious, but it also has serious dramatic stakes and doesn't feel embarrassed of its source material, there isn't a quip every minute like Marvel.

Most the arguments I see against this film are superficial "not muh" arguments. They care more about mechanical webshooters than a compelling story. The want more epic quips from Peter and don't care about dynamic action scenes. They think Tobey is silly-looking and that this invalidates all the character's genuine struggles.

>first posts of the thread include people thinking OP is starting a generation/brand war
It was just an opinion about one movie. Call down and stop getting emotional.

Also, Goblin>Ock.

How? What contrivances? Which themes are disregarded?

I genuinely want you to elaborate because I think SM2 follows through and even improves on the themes of the first film beautifully. I won't deny that the SM2 has some contrivances (literally every superhero movie does) but the first feels WAAAAAAY more contrived. I really like SM1 but 2 is a vast improvement in every way.

>Most the arguments I see against this film are superficial "not muh" arguments
Most of the opinions on the Raimi movies on this site I've seen has changed due to people rewatching them and finding that SM1 is more enjoyable. It seems you're imagining some specific opposition that's not even in this thread.

This guy right here is using the exact arguments I am citing. Evidently he thinks "organic webs" and "Tobey's face" constitute legitimate criticisms. The specific opposition is not imagined it is literally right here in this thread.

I should point out that I'm talking about people who hate the Raimi films in general, not people who think 1 is better than 2. That's a matter of personal preference albeit I'll admit its a preference I'm baffled by when 2 seems so obviously superior to me.

In the first movie, Peter realized he had to sacrifice his personal reputation and social life because of his responsibility. In the second, his powers don't work because he's sad his school crush is getting married. Also, a girl who abandons an astronaut at the wedding alter isn't really worth rooting for.

pinched a nerve, did I?

>In the first movie, Peter realized he had to sacrifice his personal reputation and social life because of his responsibility. In the second, his powers don't work because he's sad his school crush is getting married.
In the second movie Peter is living with the struggle of the sacrifice he made in the first film. It is an organic continuation of those themes. I don't think Peter really considered just how bad his life was going to be. Living is isolation and disgrace (failing his classes, MJ thinks he's a jerk, always late to work, etc.) WILL make you sick. I understand the complaint about his loss of power but I feel it's unjustified. It's not like these powers have any defined set of rules and psychosomatic illness can produce physical symptoms in the real world, so why can't they happen to Spiderman?

>a girl who abandons an astronaut at the wedding alter isn't really worth rooting for
Can't this be applied to the first film too? "A girl who dates Flash because he's cool and drives a cool car isn't worth rooting for." I also don't find MJ leaving the altar to be a particularly egregious sin. Sucks for John but honestly I think its better for a girl to be true to herself than to marry the wrong person because of some superficial notion of commitment. Would it be better if she married John despite loving Peter and then lived out the rest of her life trapped in a sham marriage?

2004, not 2014

>Guy spends his entire life working towards his dream of sustainable fusion energy
>Guy's experiment is a horrible failure, leaving him disgraced and his ego shattered
>Guy is responsible for the death of his wife in said horrible accident
>Guy is fused to an experimental set of sentient tentacle arms
>OP is angry that this guy becomes a bit edgy

Okay buddy.

SHALOM MY DEAR

>Spider-Man TAS: Spidey loses control of his powers because he's a radioactive mutant who's becoming unstable.
>Spider-Man 2: Spidey loses control of his powers because much feels.

I don't even really like TAS and I still think they handled it better.

>scene
It went on for 41 minutes, no wonder they had cut it out.

>No superhero movies have been good, period.

FIFY

>Also, Goblin>Ock.

No, Ock>Goblin but Osborn>Octavius.

THE ROMANCE

THE ROMANCE IS TERRIBLE

PETER IS SO WISHY-WASHY

MARY JANE IS SUCH A THOT

IT'S SO CORNY

IT WAS TOLERABLE IN SPIDER-MAN 1 BUT IT GOT WAY TOO ANNOYING IN 2

FUCK YOU I WILL SPACE MY POSTS ANY WAY I PLEASE

Please tell me you're baiting.

>all of this text to defend a shitty 2000's flick
lol

Is there any citation to the contrary which you will accept? I know that everyone likes to say "fuck the critics" whenever they want to be contrarian and disregard the critical consensus, so is there any other metric to measure the quality of a film that you will accept? Box office? Awards? Because by every possible measurement except your own, this film succeeds.

Check it out yo
m.youtube.com/watch?v=hO0FkFH6vy8

love it

op is out OUT OF HIS MIND

How is liking spiderman 2 a Sup Forums meme

he should use 2 arms as a support but artists neglect it

Why do DCfags don't argue about their movies?

Do they make threads about what is the best batman movie?

I've been telling people for some time that the specific emotional highs of SM2 are what they're recalling when they give it complete praise, the movie as a whole, not just the problems but the way it tries to tie itself together, pales compared to SM1.

SM1 is just undeniably the best of the trilogy under examination, almost every character, scene and element comes together purposefully and smoothly. It knocks out the park the motivation for everything that happens. There's just too much contrivance in SM2 to digest, so most people just do custom editing for the movie and forget the in between. There are strong moments like the train fight, the train stop and the train passenger assist scenes, but then there's the way Ock becomes "evil" and blames Spider-Man as you noted, Peter's money troubles, how Harry has Ock go after Spider-Man through Peter or Ock shows up to a bank when Peter's there just to keep things rolling, how Peter begins losing his powers, the sub plot shit with MJ and JJ's kid, how Ock becomes good again. All of it just a pile of concepts glued to make the semblance of a story.

Someone will come flying to their keyboard now and say how all those things had their meaning and I didn't understand and bla bla deflection through ambiguity, but no, I did understand it but we're not talking just purpose or comprehension, we're talking cohesiveness and SM2 looks like someone grafted together after a head on collision compared to SM1.

Now, to be clear, SM2 isn't bad, but it's not great by a long shot. The way everyone and everything naturally, rhythmically plays off each other in SM1 is literally poetic. Peter, Ben, May, MJ, JJ, Harry, Norman, Spidey, Goblin.

Even with its high rating it remains underrated for its composition..

Why is Otto going crazy and becoming evil worse than Norman going crazy and becoming evil? Norman's insanity also feels much more contrived than Otto's, he literally just goes fucking bonkers. What a coincidence that Norman experiments on himself and becomes the Green Goblin at exactly the same time that Peter gets bitten and becomes Spider-Man.
Obviously its a coincidence that the Goblin is Harry's Dad but I won't touch that one since its "muh comics." Why does the board at Oscorp wants to boot Norman and dissolve the company despite the fact that profits are up, just to give Norman more motivation to go crazy?

Osborn's motivations make zero sense. First he wants to take out a company which is in competition with his own, which he accomplishes very easily. Then he wants to kill the board of directors so that he will have control over his company; he easily kills all of them before Spider-Man can stop him. After that he wants...what exactly? He's already achieved his goals. He is in complete control of his company, which now has no competition. He gives Peter the choice to join him...why? What does he hope to accomplish with Peter? They can team up and...become Olympic gold medalists? Norman is already a powerful unopposed industrialist. What exactly does he hope to gain from Spider-Man? Why is he even trying to kill Spider-Man after he's already accomplished his every goal? And don't say just because he's crazy, that's a cop-out.

SM1 feels much less cohesive than the second. The first half is the origin story, the second half is the villain story. The two are completely separate and practically feel like two separate movies. All the subplots and the villain plot of 2 serve the same narrative and the same themes. Everything that happens to Peter and Otto is reflective of the responsibility that they accept or refuse. Norman is basically just a nut, he has very little thematic connection to Peter.

>Norman's insanity also feels much more contrived than Otto's, he literally just goes fucking bonkers.
Horseshit. Norman has a fleshed out history of stress, neglect and obsession before Goblin. He falls to desperation because he is ostracized and humiliated through bias, not accident.
>What a coincidence that Norman experiments on himself and becomes the Green Goblin at exactly the same time that Peter gets bitten and becomes Spider-Man.
Exact opposite. Norman's work and desperation are established as a long time matter, Peter getting bitten is the happy accident.
>Why does the board at Oscorp wants to boot Norman and dissolve the company despite the fact that profits are up, just to give Norman more motivation to go crazy?
The movie LITERALLY tells you it's because of collusion. They have Norman's money, he cannot contribute or compete anymore. He nukes their projects immediately after to illustrate his indignation. He does't just kill a surgery room full of nobodies and rob a bank.
When Spidey gets in his path of due revenge it makes sense why they come to blows, and where his conflicted obsession with Spider-Man and Peter stems from.

>He gives Peter the choice to join him...why?
He sees himself in him, power, intelligence and courage. The people he killed or despises are witless cowards. He wants Spidey to avoid the mistake of helping them by cutting ahead and joining him.
>They can team up and...become Olympic gold medalists?
You're slipping.
>Why is he even trying to kill Spider-Man after he's already accomplished his every goal?
He insists to be the hero.
>The two are completely separate and practically feel like two separate movies.
Weak attempt at emulating the earlier disassembly of SM2.
>Norman is basically just a nut, he has very little thematic connection to Peter.
He is literally Dark Ben from start to finish.

Pretend or otherwise, thank you for exposing your lack of understanding. Good day.

>Peter getting bitten is the happy accident.
Same difference, the point is that its extremely contrived that they happen around the same time.

>He wants Spidey to avoid the mistake of helping them by cutting ahead and joining him.
Joining him in what endeavor? What are they going to do. If Spider-Man said "Okay, I'll join you," what would Goblin do with him? Let him in on Oscorp? Will the two become corporate fat cats together? Norman says "think of what we could create!" But create what? The only thing he knows about Spider-Man at this point is that he is very agile, strong, and can swing around the city. Are they going to create a giant jungle gym or something?

>He insists to be the hero.
Norman wants to stop Peter from being a hero because he is ideologically opposed to the very idea of heroes? This seems like a very esoteric explanation that is hardly supported by the film.

>Weak attempt at emulating the earlier disassembly of SM2.
Really not sure what you're saying here. This is a common complaint against Spider-Man. The plot shifts gears and makes a pretty drastic turn once Peter catches Uncle Ben's killer. The structure of the film is really lopsided.

>He is literally Dark Ben from start to finish
The "dark father" theme is definitely present, but it is hardly capitalized on. Osborn's temptations of Peter aren't compelling because there is literally no reason for Peter to fall for them. Why would Peter ever join the Goblin?

>thank you for exposing your lack of understanding
This kind of glib put-down really isn't necessary. You're allowed to prefer 1 to 2 but when you start claiming some type of grand cohesive poetry I want to understand where you're coming from. It's a civil discussion there's no need for you to get butt-hurt.

Blade 2