Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailer


Jangler

Recommended Posts


 
http://www.zimbio.com/The+Amazing+Spider-Man+2/articles/Nk2VxP5kc14/Amazing+Spider+Man+2+Many+8+Villains
 
 

Yesterday, Amazing Spider-Man 2 director Marc Webb revealed via Twitter that BJ Novak would be playing wheelchair-bound robotics expert and villain Alistair Smythe in the upcoming movie. While there's nothing in the promotional materials so far suggesting he'll actually be facing off with Spidey onscreen, he represents yet another baddie thrown into a movie already packed with them.

So just how many villains are there in the new movie? Let's tick them off.
 
1. Electro (The Star Villain)
2. Rhino (Supporting Villain)
3. Green Goblin (Supporting Villain)
4. Alistair Smythe (Possible Villain)
5. Doctor Octopus (Teased)
6. The Vulture (Teased)
All we have to go on here is the above photo, but since we also know Sony is planning on a Sinister Six movie, there's a good chance they'll bring in the Vulture, a staple member of the famous rogue's gallery.
7. The Lizard (Probably Not This Movie)
8. Venom (Might Show Up)
Since Sony has already announced plans for a Venom stand-alone movie, they'll have to introduce Bugle reporter Eddie Brock at some point, and we wouldn't be surprised to see him make a quick cameo in ASM2 just to establish the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the first TASM I'm sure it'll be an enjoyable movie but whoever is designing the villains costumes really needs to be fired. The only one that I personally think has looked decent is Electro. But I always liked the Ultimate Electro look more than the classic. I'm going to have the same problem with this movie as I did the last one. "man this is pretty fun but the Lizard/Green Goblin really looks like poo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It actually looks good. One thing I am worried about is putting three villians in the movie at once. We all seen how Spiderman 3 turned out. I was ashamed of how they did Venom in the serious. I actually prefer this type of Spiderman in the current series. The trailer looks good and believe Fox will play the character well. I was skeptical about him when he started acting but I seen quite a few of his movies and he really gets into character. Should be fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the first TASM I'm sure it'll be an enjoyable movie but whoever is designing the villains costumes really needs to be fired. The only one that I personally think has looked decent is Electro. But I always liked the Ultimate Electro look more than the classic. I'm going to have the same problem with this movie as I did the last one. "man this is pretty fun but the Lizard/Green Goblin really looks like poo"

I thought The Lizard looked great in the first movie. Loved the scene where Spidey was crawling all over him. good stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The guy at my local comic shop said that he heard from somebody who was able to get an early viewing that Electro gets like, 15 minutes in the whole film and he steals the show in those 15 minutes. Outside of that, he said it just felt like Spider-Man 3. A lot of characters being thrown at you, but nothing really making sense.


So, if that's true, I'll be bummed. I'm going to go see it, so I guess I'll find out. THIS is what happens when a company (like Sony) has rights to ONE superhero from a major comic label that is also doing movies based on the comics, and doing it great and molding them to intermingle a good bit. Sony is trying to build the rogue's gallery and create this seemingly dense world for Peter Parker to be in all in one movie. If Marvel were doing this movie, Spidey would have one clear enemy, with MAYBE one minor enemy employed by the main enemy thrown in. And it would be amazing from start to finish, most likely. Marvel hasn't put out a movie that I didn't like.


Sony and Fox need to do the right thing. Sell the rights back to Marvel (Marvel could literally give them both blank checks) so that Marvel can put Wolverine and Spidey in the Avengers and fulfill every comic nerd's wet dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really wanna see Wolverine and Spider Man in the Avengers, but I do wanna see Marvel having full control.

 

Trailers for this make me think they're gonna have Harry Osborn be the first Green Goblin rather than his dad.  That would be some major screwing with comic history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...