None that I know of, but I obviously haven't read every storyline. Yet.

No, he really is 28. In the issue that came out literally four days ago, it says he's been Spider-Man for 13 years, and he started at 15.

It was a joke.

Ah. Every once in a while I get jokes. This was not one of those times.

Durr.

No ****ing way they go that route. If they do it will be horrible. They do not have the balls to do it correctly at rated R.

And someone else said it, the big characters are held by different movie rights.

Well that's great and all, but he's 18 in this movie and looks like a 30 year old. He just doesn't sound like one. It's a stark contrast when compared to Osborne.

Movie wasn't as bad as it's been made out to be. The Goblin stuff was a bit rushed and, as usual, to get from point to point it seemed a lot of coincidences needed to happen ("oh, look, I just took a serum to turn into the Green Goblin, and luckily right here is some sort of flying suit that I magically know how to operate"). And I bought the Foxx character more before he turned into Doctor Manhattan. But it was entertaining albeit a bit talky and a half hour too long.

Movie was good. Problem is that people now expect a dark superhero movie every time they see one. Or at the very least, serious superhero movies. But Spider-Man has always had that campy sense of humor. He's just not this dark guy. So his dialogue always seems stupid in he movies. But the movies are just being true to who Spidey is in the comics.

I haven't seen 2 yet, but in the first Amazing Spider-Man they weren't very true to his character in the comics. Spider-Man is not the guy to show off in the high school gym or taunt the police, for example.

Rumor for III is the main baddy will be Kraven the Hunter, and adapt the storyline from Kraven's Last Hunt

This column claims a lot was changed in the editing room at the last minute. Like the first film.

http://badassdigest.com/2014/05/07/n...-spider-man-2/

It's become clear that the main aesthetic driving the Amazing Spider-Man films is 'changing our mind and redoing the whole film in the editing room,' as both movies' marketing campaigns include peeks into massive subplots utterly excised from the final films. In the first it was all the stuff about Peter's parents having a secret - I spelled it out for you in this article. This year the big missing element is Oscorp tracking Peter; the ads and trailers made a big deal out of this, and even made it seem as if Harry Osborn had put two and two together and knew that Peter was Spider-Man (his reasoning in the movie is so awful - that because Peter took A picture of Spider-Man he must know Spider-Man - that we would be thankful to learn this was a last minute change). The whole dynamic of that relationship seems to be different.

But that isn't the only change made during the course of making/editing the movie. One change that I've heard whispered about is actually kind of big, and I don't know why it was altered, as it would have fixed some problems with the first movie: in the original script Donald Mencken, the Colm Feore character who is an asshole at Oscorp and who fires Harry Osborn, was Mr. Ratha. You remember him - the character played by Irrfan Khan who disappears in The Amazing Spider-Man but who, according to the trailers and released photos, was probably killed by the Lizard in a deleted scene. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 feels like a sequel to a movie that isn't The Amazing Spider-Man, and having Ratha show up and continue his asshole ways would have gone a long way to solve that. It also would have made a dent in the big wall of white guys.

One element that made it all the way to shooting, and screenshots of it have somehow made their way online. It was to be a post-credits tag, and it was to be when Mr. Fiers (give me a ****ing break) is in the Oscorp lab, setting up the Sinister Six. One of the rooms has a head in a jar - Norman Osborn's head. "Time to wake up, old friend," Fiers says, and then the final credits roll.

Is that particularly good? Not really, but it certainly beats a guy in a hat walking in front of Doc Ock's tentacles. And it makes the appearance of Chris Cooper in the movie feel like it had some, I don't know, point? I'm glad Cooper got a paycheck, but he's playing one of the single most pointless roles I have ever seen in a major film, one that exists simply because the character was a big deal in the comics.

Are these the only changes made to the film? Is The Amazing Spider-Man 2, like The Amazing Spider-Man, a victim of visionless leaders being pushed around by marketing types (both films scored dismally in early tests, I understand)? Will the next film have that same feeling of figuring it out as they go along, and not telling the marketing people what they cut?

Ya know I'd like to see them make available all the cuts from both films. You gotta figure there's probably an hour or more of it, and basically whole other 2 movies.

I would like that. If I remember correctly, Spider-Man dies in that arc..?

Sedated - thought to be dead and buried alive for ~2 weeks.

Spider-Man is more this type of guy
http://i.imgur.com/kVvxUr8.jpg

Holy moses, this movie was just plain terrible.