The C3G Cave - Hangout

[ALEXAN2507]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

I like Red Robin still, but, yeah, he's not spectacular by any means. I like combining his Attack Plan with Oracle's Secret Attack Plan to go all in on really hard to hit foes. But I'm also someone who is happy to burn OMs to boost Silver Surfer, so that might just be how I roll.

I'd agree that Cyborg is fine but unspectacular. Needing the "X" for his healing just hurts him so much in Nightwing builds and if you don't bring Nightwing, why are you going Titans? That part's kind of a disappointment in retrospect.

I hope we can at least blow some dust off of poor Beast Boy by removing that Order Marker requirement. What's it take to get that done?

Yeah I ran Cyborg for the first Arsenal playtest and he sat and did nothing the whole game

If I'd lost any other characters he might have been worth bringing into play but the Starfire/Raven tag-team (even with a dead Nightwing and Arsenal) felt too strong for it to be worth doing

[japes]

Watched Spider-Man 2 last night with my son. I remembered it not being my favorite but didn't remember how bad it was. I kept my opinions to myself so my son could enjoy it since he really liked the first one. Then towards the end he asked me how much longer it was and I checked and there were 45 minutes left. He then said "Oh gosh...I don't think I can make it that much longer...this is horrible." We finished it...sort of. He went to the get a drink and said "don't pause it" and came back 5 minutes later. I asked him to rank his Spider-Man movies so far and he said...

Homecoming,
Toby Spider-Man 1
Amazing 1
Amazing 2
Toby Spider-Man 2

I then said, "so you like Amazing 2 better than this one?" In full preteen attitude he responded..."it's not like that's saying much, dad, but it wasn't as awful as this one"

[Lazy Orang]

Hmm... I don't recall Spider-Man 2 being that bad, just... forgettable. That being said, I don't think I've seen any of the Raimi films more than once, not a big fan of any of them.

[japes]

I may not have realized how bad when I first saw it since I was only vaguely familiar with most of the actors. Now that I've seen more of James Franco's work, I realize just how bad he was in this movie.

I too think I had only seen this one time. And it was obviously forgettable since I didn't recall most of the movie. I even started doubting whether I had seen it before until I recognized a few parts in the middle.

[IAmBatman]

That subway scene was phenomenal.

[MrNobody]

I know a lot of people actually still hold Spider-Man 2 up as a pretty good movie, so that may be a contentious opinion.

I think placing it in context says a lot more about why it is so highly regarded. To me, most superhero movies before Iron Man/Batman Begins suffer from the same problem, in that they don't strive for serious film-making because they're "just comic book movies." I think goofiness was often a goal, and that meant bad performances were overlooked or even promoted way more than they would be in regular films from the same time. Some films ended up being good (I still really like Superman '78 and Batman '89), but I think they were the exceptions to the rule, not the standard.

The reason the Spider-Man (and early X-Men to some extent) films were so well-regarded, I think, is because they were some of the first steps in moving towards superhero films as "real" big-boy movies instead of as cheap schlock. Then Batman Begins took the "serious superhero" formula even further by trying its best to constrain Batman to the rules of our world. To me though, Iron Man is the most important superhero film of all time, as it proved that it was possible to pull off the "comic-booky" aesthetic while remaining grounded, and that superheroes didn't have to be dark and gloomy to be believable. After that, superheroes exploded into what we have today, but Spider-Man was an important stepping stone in reaching that.

I enjoy the Raimi Spider-Man movies as well as stuff like the Superman quadrilogy. I do think it's one of those things where you have to keep in mind the era in which it was made, but setting that aside I find the character dynamics in all 3 Spider-Man movies to be engaging enough, if not spectacular.

TL;DR: I think Spider-Man 2 seems worse now than it did to people back then because we're spoiled by the superhero movies we have today.

[japes]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

TL;DR: I think Spider-Man 2 seems worse now than it did to people back then because we're spoiled by the superhero movies we have today.

I can agree with that point on why I didn't remember it being as bad originally. But having watched the first Spider-Man just weeks ago with my son and seeing how different the quality of the acting was in both Tobey and Franco was kind of in your face obvious to me. James Franco more so than Tobey. The story could have used a bit more editing as there are parts that just didn't belong or were just not done well, but the acting really hurt it.

[johnny139]

Spider-Man 2 is still the best superhero movie of all time, as far as I'm concerned. It's in that same box as The Dark Knight and the original Avengers as "legitimately good movies" outside of the superhero genre. All of them succeed 100% at what they're trying to do, and really capture the spirit and vision of their directors. They're as close to auteur as the genre gets.

...as I think of it, might put Logan in that category, too. Though the last act really drags it down for me. I dunno.

[Lazy Orang]

I'd have to put Civil War, Winter Soldier and Infinity War in the 'legitimately great film' category along with Dark Knight.
Honestly, I feel like saying that they're legitimately good films despite being in the superhero genre is a bit patronising. IMO, most of the Marvel stuff qualifies as being legitimately good films at what they're trying to do, sometimes (though obviously not always) actually really good. Ragnarok and the Guardians films are great comedy/action/sci-fi hybrids (with a little fantasy in the case of Ragnarok). The first two Avengers are really good action films, etc.. No, there isn't a Shawshank Redemption here, but that's not what they're meant to be. They're fun, they're entertaining, they're funny, they're exciting, and they have great characters. That's what they're meant to be, and they genuinely succeed.
Now DC on the other hand....

[japes]

Originally Posted by johnny139

Spider-Man 2 is still the best superhero movie of all time, as far as I'm concerned. It's in that same box as The Dark Knight and the original Avengers as "legitimately good movies" outside of the superhero genre. All of them succeed 100% at what they're trying to do, and really capture the spirit and vision of their directors. They're as close to auteur as the genre gets.

...as I think of it, might put Logan in that category, too. Though the last act really drags it down for me. I dunno.

Please go on. Not mocking at all but I want to know why you feel that about Spider-Man 2.

[johnny139]

A lot of people love the Russos' movies (Winter Soldier/Civil War/Infinity War), but I don't think they're great. They're very formulaic and... artless, for lack of a better term? They're watchable, they do what they set out to, but they don't really have the ambition or artistry that a movie needs to be really "good" in my book. Sizzle almost always beats steak in blockbusters, and I have very little interest in sizzle.

Note that I'm probably grading on a curve, here. What most people call "good" I call "fine." What most people call "great" I call "good." And there's a handful of movies out there that are truly "great."

@japes - Lucky for you, I actually wrote a post about the Raimi movies a few weeks ago! Essentially, the "bad" stuff - being plodding, sappy, and overwrought - is what makes it so special and unique, and makes it the only comic book movie to really capture what made comic books special in the Silver Age.

Originally Posted by johnny139

Spider-Man movies? Don't mind if I jump in.

The first two Raimi movies are great, and a lot of that is drawn from Raimi's own deep love for the old - and I mean, Lee/Ditko old - comics. Peter, even by the end of the 60s, grows into a confident, well-rounded person, which is all well and good, but Raimi keys into those feelings of alienation that define early Peter.

Like, Maguire's Peter gets bullied. No one likes him. He's a good guy, underneath it all, but he's pushed around by everyone he meets. And for good reason! He's one of the only "movie geeks" I've seen that feels real. He's just a funny looking, quiet weirdo that has no friends, constantly staring into space and saying weird things. He's lovable but not likable.

And Dunst's Mary-Jane... like a lot of Raimi's choices, not a great adaptation, but wonderful at capturing the spirit. Comic drama is melodrama - it's soap opera with tights. She's teary-eyed, she flip-flops, she's a cipher for every "female crush" in human history, unattainable but somehow there at the end of the day. An awful female character, and probably one of the worst love interests on her own merits, but as an adaptation of a four-color love story, shallow and broad enough that the viewer layers on their own life experience, she's brilliant.

Most comic books movies are film versions of what comic books would like to be - Nolan's Batman is the crime noir Batman comics always try to be, and the MCU pumps in as much wit and spectacle and character as they can. But Raimi wanted to make a comic movie the way that comics actually are - sappy and cheesy and goofy. And unlike most people, he does it without any shame. He has an honest love for the genre because of its flaws, knowing the flaws are why they connected with people all over the world.

[japes]

Ok, I see your view here. To me there is trying to make a "good" by your definition movie and failing to nail it. You mention that you are grading on a curve but I think you are also grading Spider-Man 2 on a different curve. You are giving it a lot of bonus points for trying to tell that story.

My issue wasn't with the sappy melodrama (and I am physically and emotionally unable to say a negative thing about Dunst, ever, as even my wife knows I have a huge thing for her) My issue was with the execution. The acting was not even to the standards of the actors normal output. The alienation that defines early Peter is well done in the scenes where he's just sitting in his crappy apartment looking around. Every scene with James Franco in it was painful.

So I'm fine with all of this

Like, Maguire's Peter gets bullied. No one likes him. He's a good guy, underneath it all, but he's pushed around by everyone he meets. And for good reason! He's one of the only "movie geeks" I've seen that feels real. He's just a funny looking, quiet weirdo that has no friends, constantly staring into space and saying weird things. He's lovable but not likable.

and sure that was evident. I don't need any of that to change for me to think it's a good movie. I just need the rest to add up as well. The story was fine.

For the record Winter Soldier is my favorite Avenger's Movie because I like Spy fiction and I'm not a huge fan of Civil War either.