Movie News: Spider-man 2

mrfusion

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Filming in New York in February

(On Location Vacations) The Amazing Spider-Man sequel will begin principal photography next month and they'll be in New York City for a two-week venture. On Location Vacations reports that the production will be in New York from February 12th through the 26th and the film will be shooting under the name "Untitled Columbia Pictures Project." There's no word on where production will move after New York.

Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Martin Sheen are set to reprise their roles for the film. They are joined by Jamie Foxx as Electro, Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson, and Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn. It was reported yesterday that Paul Giammatti is in talks to play the Rhino in the film and actress Felicity Jones is up for another unnamed role.

The Amazing Spider-Man sequel is once again being directed by Marc Webb and will hit theaters on May 2, 2014.

David_D

Wow. . . a whole TWO WEEKS of New York filming for a movie about an iconic New York City character that is set in New York.

(Color me unimpressed. That was one of things that I loved about the Raimi S-M movies. . . they were New York City movies that actually shot a lot in New York City)

mrfusion

Its SUPER expensive to shoot in NYC. Plus if you do it right, no one will notice. Most of The Avengers New York shots were CG. Many of the actual street scenes were shot in elsewhere as well (Chicago I believe)

David_D

mrfusion said:

Its SUPER expensive to shoot in NYC. Plus if you do it right, no one will notice. Most of The Avengers New York shots were CG. Many of the actual street scenes were shot in elsewhere as well (Chicago I believe)

Oh, I know why they don't.
But I also know it makes a difference to me. And it was a difference I noticed from Raimis (which still used some other cities) to Amazing (which was almost all faked). At least Avengers, in its mix, made an effort to understand the geography and be specific. Amazing didn't bother, and I doubt the sequel will either.

Some things are worth the money. And when authenticity is available as a grounding for the fantasy, that is what I prefer. I know others may not care.

mrfusion

David_D said:

At least Avengers, in its mix, made an effort to understand the geography and be specific.

You can say that again! I think there's a feature on the DVD about all the reference photos sphere's we took in NY. I think it was more than for any other movie we've done.

David_D

mrfusion said:

David_D said:

At least Avengers, in its mix, made an effort to understand the geography and be specific.

You can say that again! I think there's a feature on the DVD about all the reference photos sphere's we took in NY. I think it was more than for any other movie we've done.

It was time well-spent in my book, and really made a difference to me as far as getting immersed in it as a local. One of the many things done very, very well on that one.

RedRight88

A casting update and generic plot synopsis (their words not mine)

Planeis

David_D said:

mrfusion said:

Its SUPER expensive to shoot in NYC. Plus if you do it right, no one will notice. Most of The Avengers New York shots were CG. Many of the actual street scenes were shot in elsewhere as well (Chicago I believe)

Oh, I know why they don't.
But I also know it makes a difference to me. And it was a difference I noticed from Raimis (which still used some other cities) to Amazing (which was almost all faked). At least Avengers, in its mix, made an effort to understand the geography and be specific. Amazing didn't bother, and I doubt the sequel will either.

Some things are worth the money. And when authenticity is available as a grounding for the fantasy, that is what I prefer. I know others may not care.

Well. My first reaction to this was "meh, who cares"

But you're right. I haven't seen Amazing, but it is noticeable when they do a poor job of having a city "stand in" for another city. As a Maryland/DC local I always notice when things are "DC" that clearly aren't

tazmaniak

Sony gives us a look at the new Spider-Man suit.

Coming Soon

matchkitJOHN

There are some set photos making the rounds too.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151464655063257&set=pcb.10151464656003257&type=1&theater

mrfusion

I like the new (old) costume much better than the one in the last film.

tazmaniak

mrfusion said:

I like the new (old) costume much better than the one in the last film.

I like the one from the previous film because it looks different from the suit in the Raimi films. It completely separates the franchises. This one looks good, but it looks like an update of the Raimi suit. I just prefer the suits from the franchises to not look the same.

Matt

tazmaniak said:

mrfusion said:

I like the new (old) costume much better than the one in the last film.

I like the one from the previous film because it looks different from the suit in the Raimi films. It completely separates the franchises. This one looks good, but it looks like an update of the Raimi suit. I just prefer the suits from the franchises to not look the same.

Yeah, this wouldn't be an issue if they just didn't reboot the franchise...or waited to do so.

M

tazmaniak

Matt said:

tazmaniak said:

mrfusion said:

I like the new (old) costume much better than the one in the last film.

I like the one from the previous film because it looks different from the suit in the Raimi films. It completely separates the franchises. This one looks good, but it looks like an update of the Raimi suit. I just prefer the suits from the franchises to not look the same.

Yeah, this wouldn't be an issue if they just didn't reboot the franchise...or waited to do so.

M

I don't know, sometimes you just have to. It probably wasn't a good idea to continue the Raimi franchise, due to the poor reception of the final film. Not to mention the fact that Toby Maguire had aged out of the role. The actor was nearing his mid-30s when they were trying to put together Spider-Man 4, while the character was 21 when we last saw him in Spider-Man 3.

More importantly, there's the issue of maintaining the film license. There's only so long a studio can hold the rights to a character and not use them before they lose them. Five years were spaced between Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. Any longer and they were likely in danger of losing the character. Five years is more or less how long you can get away with not utilizing the rights to these characters.

You look at properties like Ghost Rider, Daredevil and Fantastic Four that have/had to meet a production deadline in order to hold on to the license. I'm not sure about Sony's deal, but Fox's deal with Marvel stipulates a film must be in production within 7 years of the last film or the rights revert back to Marvel. Fox's last Daredevil film was Elektra in 2005, and that's why the rights reverted back to Marvel in 2012. At least they were supposed to. We haven't actually heard if they did. The last Fantastic Four film was in 2007, so Fox has to have a new movie in production by next year or the rights will be returned to Marvel. Fox plans on the new Fantastic Four to start filming next year.

I'm inclined to think Sony's deals have much shorter lives than Fox's deal. Sony needed to have the Ghost Rider sequel in production by November 2010, which is a little less than 4 years after the first film. The Amazing Spider-Man went into production about 3½ after Spider-Man 3 was released. I would imagine the studio not wanting the rights to revert back to Marvel played a large part in deciding when they would reboot the franchise.

Matt

tazmaniak said:

Matt said:

tazmaniak said:

mrfusion said:

I like the new (old) costume much better than the one in the last film.

I like the one from the previous film because it looks different from the suit in the Raimi films. It completely separates the franchises. This one looks good, but it looks like an update of the Raimi suit. I just prefer the suits from the franchises to not look the same.

Yeah, this wouldn't be an issue if they just didn't reboot the franchise...or waited to do so.

M

I don't know, sometimes you just have to. It probably wasn't a good idea to continue the Raimi franchise, due to the poor reception of the final film. Not to mention the fact that Toby Maguire had aged out of the role. The actor was nearing his mid-30s when they were trying to put together Spider-Man 4, while the character was 21 when we last saw him in Spider-Man 3.

More importantly, there's the issue of maintaining the film license. There's only so long a studio can hold the rights to a character and not use them before they lose them. Five years were spaced between Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. Any longer and they were likely in danger of losing the character. Five years is more or less how long you can get away with not utilizing the rights to these characters.

You look at properties like Ghost Rider, Daredevil and Fantastic Four that have/had to meet a production deadline in order to hold on to the license. I'm not sure about Sony's deal, but Fox's deal with Marvel stipulates a film must be in production within 7 years of the last film or the rights revert back to Marvel. Fox's last Daredevil film was Elektra in 2005, and that's why the rights reverted back to Marvel in 2012. At least they were supposed to. We haven't actually heard if they did. The last Fantastic Four film was in 2007, so Fox has to have a new movie in production by next year or the rights will be returned to Marvel. Fox plans on the new Fantastic Four to start filming next year.

I'm inclined to think Sony's deals have much shorter lives than Fox's deal. Sony needed to have the Ghost Rider sequel in production by November 2010, which is a little less than 4 years after the first film. The Amazing Spider-Man went into production about 3½ after Spider-Man 3 was released. I would imagine the studio not wanting the rights to revert back to Marvel played a large part in deciding when they would reboot the franchise.

Actually, I was thinking just keep it in the same universe. They could've replaced the star, had MJ "leave for a while" and develop the romance with Gwen. Skip the whole origin bit. THEN I might have been more motivated to see it.

M

steve_bryant

tazmaniak said:

Matt said:

tazmaniak said:

mrfusion said:

I like the new (old) costume much better than the one in the last film.

I like the one from the previous film because it looks different from the suit in the Raimi films. It completely separates the franchises. This one looks good, but it looks like an update of the Raimi suit. I just prefer the suits from the franchises to not look the same.

Yeah, this wouldn't be an issue if they just didn't reboot the franchise...or waited to do so.

M

I don't know, sometimes you just have to. It probably wasn't a good idea to continue the Raimi franchise, due to the poor reception of the final film.

What is this poor reception of which you speak?

Raimi's third Spider-Man movie did $336,530,303 domestically (third best of the Raimi movies, but well ahead of the reboot). Internationally, Spider-Man 3 was the most successful of all four movies, grossing $890,900,000 worldwide.

Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=spiderman.htm

The movie may not have been comic fandom's favorite, but the only response that Sony cares about is the box office, and Spider-Man 3 was a success.

I would assume that the reason for the reboot had more to do with the combined cost of the franchise's director and stars than it did how much comic fans liked Spider-Man 3.

JaxUr

Oscar winner Chris Cooper is said to be Norman Osborn in Spidey 2:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=74837

Mr_Cosmic

He's good at playing super rich guys...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJKjXAY5bs

tazmaniak

First set pics of Jamie Foxx as Electro.

Chuck_Melville

When did Electro get blue skin!?

jaydee74

I'm not sure but I think he looks pretty cool from what I can see in the pictures. I'm not curious to see how this version of Electro is going to be handled and hopefully this will be pretty cool.

Chuck_Melville

jaydee74 said:

I'm not sure but I think he looks pretty cool from what I can see in the pictures. I'm not curious to see how this version of Electro is going to be handled and hopefully this will be pretty cool.

I was thinking just the opposite -- that it was cheap, obvious and predictable that the guy who suddenly got powers had to have some kind of obvious deformity. Makes you wonder why Spidey didn't just suddenly grow four extra arms.

Now, if this was some sort of effect that only showed while he was using his powers, I could see that...

jaydee74

Well, I don't know if it looks cheap or not and all we're seeing is a couple of still photos. I would be curious to see it in the movie itself and what it looks like on the screen. I got a feeling that it will look more impressive than just what it looks like in the phtoos but from just what I am seeing in the photos, I kind of like it. I like that it's different and hopefully Electro will look pretty impressive on the screeen. I want to be optimistic and while I wasn't sure about Jamie Foxx when he was first cast, I'm more optimistic.

chrisw

I'm guessing that the blue is there for an effect to be added later. I hope that's the case, because the blue by itself just looks odd to me. I can't imagine that they'd miss the opportunity to do something interesting with electricity flowing and sparking around him.

Mr_Cosmic

Chuck_Melville said:

When did Electro get blue skin!?

Ultimate U:



MTV Cartoon:



Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon:



...seems like the 616 is the only place he isn't.

Chuck_Melville

Mr_Cosmic said:

Chuck_Melville said:

When did Electro get blue skin!?

Ultimate U, MTV Cartoon, Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon:

...seems like the 616 is the only place he isn't.

...which would explain why I didn't know about it; I only read the 616 version.

Heck, no... come to think of it, I don't read that version anymore either!

Mr_Cosmic

Yeah, I only knew about the MTV Cartoon being a blue guy but then when I searched for "blue electro" these other versions popped up too.

I guess a normal looking guy in a green and yellow costume is silly...as opposed to a blue skinned lightning dude.

Matt

Wait...Electro is the brother of LiveWire?!

M.

John_Steed

I prefer his full name "Naked Electric Guy" :))

Matt

In all honesty, this is not winning my interest thus far. I wasn't a big fan of the first movie (in this series), but was looking forward to a non-origin sequel. The more heavily they are going to be leaning on the Ultimate versions (which I was never a fan), the less of an interest I have in it.

M

Eric_C

Am I the only one who thinks Electro looks like what the Smallville Frozen Freak of the Week would turn people into in the episode COOL?