The Amazing Spider-Man Can Spider-Man 4 fix Spider-Man 3?

[TheVileOne]

Vis, I'm sure no matter what you would anyway.

 

[david icke]

So that means if SM4 sucks hard, there will be no excuses not to fully blame Sam Raimi, eh?

Yes, people can post poisonous/radioactive/deadly spiders to him or throw old webs in his face at parties and fear no reprisals from the spider-gods.
I hope no-one from those Scarymovies series is reading the boards or they might appropriate the title 'sucks hard' for a series of action movie spoofs.

Raimi has made many mistakes, most of them probably in SM3, but I think he will have learnt from them. For one, he is going back to letting others handle scripting duties, instead of relying on old decrepit butlers to plug character motivation gaps. I still can't believe he did that. Anyway, it's time to move on to 'Spider-man 4 : The Lizard Sssucks Hard'

 

[DACMAN]

I seriously wonder where you heard that Raimi's going to bring back those guys... because I highly doubt they'd make the mistake of doing that.

It's like some of you people never visit the main boards or something. It has been said over and over.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8465

 

[DACMAN]

nothing was worse when Gwen was about to fall from a building, Gwens Dad " what she doing up there?"

Uck... I forgot about that part. Man, some of it was so poorly written it's like my brain blocks it out.

 

[DACMAN]

It's a shame as Raimi had the 1st two under his belt and would have learned from all his experiences there, only to have Avi arad force a villan and storyline on him. That's why I think there's a good chance that SM4 will be his best one, all the experience and no-one to get in his way. This time he has to make his definitive SM movie, no doubt, this will probably be his last chance to get it as right as he can.

I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

 

[Vis]

How do you know this, Vis?

Simply put...Mr. Raimi is repetitive. He's going to bring up plot points and wallow in it--then create scenes that we've already seen in the previous films.

 

[Vis]

It's like some of you people never visit the main boards or something. It has been said over and over.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8465

Perfect example of Raimi wallowing in the past, never moving the franchise forward. And of all things, he's messing with Spidey's Origin/Uncle Ben's Death, again.

 

[omid17]

I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

well said. I was one of those people who blamed Avi too a while back, but like you said Raimi is the one who calls the shots, and wasn't he the one who dismissed Vanderbilt's script for SM4

 

[TheSlag]

What really bugs me is the fact Eddie even knows about MJ. He thought Peter and Gwen were dating. And don't give me that "the symbiot told him" crap. They never say that in the movie. Which leaves the average movie goer confused.

Also the scene with Doc Connors and Peter and the alien. He's just like "don't get that stuff on you" instead of "WOW! A LIVING ALIEN! THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING DISCOVERY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!" Instead they're all just "wow, it seems to like you..."

Totally agree, especially with the second point. Sloppy film making and story telling. And I DO NOT CARE to hear the excuse that Venom and the story line was "forced" on Raimi... PERIOD. That is JUST an excuse, and a poor one at that.. for Sloppy.. DO NOT Care.. film making and story telling.

They had a chance to do the story right, and we got this dribble. I wouldn't even give it the respect to call it dribble actually... Dribble Lite. :

A chance to tell the symbiote/Black Spider-Man/Venom storyline..tell it Epic.. and Raimi simply fumbles the ball BIG TIME!!!

Such a great story line.. and we get this BS. Pity.. no not pity.. A CRIME!

 

[TheSlag]

Simply put...Mr. Raimi is repetitive. He's going to bring up plot points and wallow in it--then create scenes that we've already seen in the previous films.

Yes, as his track record shows.

And welcome back Oscar.. you would sorely missed. This place needs more critical thinking, and less POM POM waiving.

 

[david icke]

I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

Well, some people like pointing out the obvious, so I'll assume that those kind of people need the obvious pointed out to them.

The 3rd movie had plot strands that needed tied up, mainly the Harry plot, given that Raimi had already written a script that featured that and other villans, he didn't have much time to change the script to incorporate not only a new villan in Venom, but the symbiote, which by necesity stretches over the whole plot basically.
This led to the movie being overcrowded.

I said that in a few other posts yesterday, did I really need to go over it again and agian, especailly given that it's blindingly obvious?

edit: and the thing is, he did make it work, he did incorporate it into the movie, it's just that it wasn't as effective as it could have been if several plans for the movie had not clashed at once.

edit:It's not just the producer forcing a character on the director, it's the producer going back on his word that the director could have free reign, so the director's plans are thrown out the window.
Avi Arad just has to say 'Venom', but he doesn't have to worry about the fact that it's a long convulted story that has to start with a whole plot with Spider-man beofre that villan can even appear. That this plot on top of an already set out plot(Harry) might be too much is no concern of his, he just wants to rake in the money that he thinks Venom will bring in.

Your trying to educate me on the fact there are such things as producers?
Well, you might want to consider that there is such a thing as a BAD producer. One who puts quick money beofore good creative decisions.
Y'know, rushing a small appearance into the thrid movie instead of being patient and saving him for the next.

 

[Artistsean]

My Spider-Man 4 idea, Mysterio story posted here: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=331347&page=81, would redeem things for Peter and for Spider-Man.

 

[sauronthegreat]

I honestly believe that a good and thorough Director's Cut will fix Spider-Man 3.
I just can't wait for them to release it before the fourth film.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Ofcourse.

Make the villains EVIL.
Cut out the camp ****.
Take it seriously,instead of making it a "last day of pre school, so all fun and mayhem" movie.

 

[DACMAN]

Agree 100%

 

[TheScarecrow]

View Post
I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

But didn't Raimi already have a script? You would certainly think so since storyboards of the original script exist and Raimi was in talks with Kingsley. It's one thing to enter a project and be told what to include, it's quite another to have someone stop you in the middle and tell you take out a big chunk of the script, put in a massive new plotline and still remain on schedule.

I agree though, it does not validate the ludicrous scenes in Spider-man 3, but it does explain the movies over-arching flaws.

 

[SpideyFan914]

Copy&pasted from the "I Want to Evolve Peter Parker" thread:

I don't think there is any one reason that the movie failed.

I believe that Venom did, in part, contribute to their failure. This does not mean Venom is a bad villain - in fact, he's one of my favorites - but he was certainly rushed, and the symbiote even moreso. I actually did like Venom in the movie, and thought Eddie Brock was truly sinister and an appealing villain. I don't even mind that much that he was put off 'til the end - considering that Venom needs such a big build-up, there's no other way to do it.
Except, of course, spanning the idea over multiple films.
The symbiote got an even bigger shaft than Venom. Rather than taking the time to develop, it just flew down on a meteor and coincidentally landed right next to Peter Parker, and when he put on the symbiote, he turned into a punk '50s motorcycle gang member minus the motorcycle, also known as emo Peter. Yeah, the symbiote definitely needed more time to develop and show how it really twists Peter into an aggressive, vengeance-seeking, darker version of himself. Only the part where he "killed" Sandman gave off that impression at all. (And yet, it was when he "hurt MJ" that he realized he had changed - okay, that's a fault with writing.)
So whose to blame for this? The fans? Avi Arad?

But that wasn't the only problem. I think that the next problem with the movie was the inclusion of Sandman. Even worse, the idea of Sandman killing Uncle Ben. The retconning of Spider-Man's origin was not something I enjoyed - in fact, it takes a large dimension out of the character, and really creates a mess. And what's worse, by doing this, we lost even more time! Sandman didn't even have anything to do with Venom or Harry, so it became impossible to link the stories together.
So whose to blame here? Sam Raimi?

Now, one could say that this one movie should've been several. I'd agree with this, for the most part, though I certainly do not believe that the Sandman plot should have ever been. Yet MadGoblin (spideykicksbutt.com) claims that the movie's biggest problem was not in the planning, but the editing. And he does have a point - it would've been much more powerful to see Venom threaten Venom's daughter (I believe this was in the original), or to see the scene where Sandman's family returns to the final battle, explaining why he disappeared for the latter end of his fight and giving a resolution to his storyline. But of course, the editors did have to cut something.
So what do we blame? The editing? Or the planning?

And those weren't the only problems either. One could certainly argue that Aunt May's haggish hairdo detracted from the power of her speeches and cost her ethos. We could point to Tobey Maguire's crying, which wasn't quite above par. Many have complained that Kirsten Dunst has lost her touch.
Where lies the blame? The costumers? Tobey Maguire? Kirsten Dunst?

There is no single problem with the movie, but many problems on many levels, and fixing just one of them or replacing just one person would not have turned into an Academy Award winner. However, it is now time to move on. Those involved should learn from the mistakes they made, and be careful not to repeat them. Replacing the whole cast and crew won't make for a better Spidey movie - rather, learning from the past as a whole, and moving on to evolve as a franchise will.

 

[bullets]

Copy&pasted from the "I Want to Evolve Peter Parker" thread:

I don't think there is any one reason that the movie failed.



(spideykicksbutt.com) claims that the movie's biggest problem was not in the planning, but the editing. And he does have a point - it would've been much more powerful to see Venom threaten Sandman's daughter (I believe this was in the original), or to see the scene where Sandman's family returns to the final battle, explaining why he disappeared for the latter end of his fight and giving a resolution to his storyline. But of course, the editors did have to cut something.
So what do we blame? The editing? Or the planning?

Not including the daughter at the end was a big fault for me . I know they had Venom threaten the family in the videogame and it would of been a better way to tie the villians together.


I don't know why the robber will appear in Spider-man 4 but I really hope it's not that he is still alive.

 

[bullets]

I honestly believe that a good and thorough Director's Cut will fix Spider-Man 3.
I just can't wait for them to release it before the fourth film.

Is there such a thing?

 

[SpideyFan914]

Not including the daughter at the end was a big fault for me . I know they had Venom threaten the family in the videogame and it would of been a better way to tie the villians together.

Actually, that's something that would be fixed in a director's cut - they had actually filmed a scene where Sandman's family arrived at the construction site, and his daughter told him something (I forget exactly what, but it wasn't good news). That's also why he left the fight halfway through, and why he had such a sudden change in heart, and why he gave up stealing money just to be with his daughter.
However, the editors thought it was too depressing, and cut it out.

 

[Doc Ock]

Sam truly does realizes the mistakes of Spider-Man 3, so I think Spidey 4 will definitely be better than Spidey 3. But i'm not sure if it will fix Spidey 3.

 

[DACMAN]

Well if this "Vulturess" stuff turns out to be true, it would seem he hasn't learned anything from 3.

 

[SpideyFan914]

Well if this "Vulturess" stuff turns out to be true, it would seem he hasn't learned anything from 3.

Pfft.

 

[webhead731]

Raimi really dropped the ball when he made the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. We've heard that the same guy that played the burglar is coming back. Do you think it's possible to revisit his death AGAIN and fix what Raimi screwed up?

Really?

I mean, did he really screw up the story? Because the story is Peter failed to stop a guy and that indirectly caused the death of his Uncle. That story is still there.
No way to go back now.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Really?

I mean, did he really screw up the story? Because the story is Peter failed to stop a guy and that indirectly caused the death of his Uncle. That story is still there.
No way to go back now.

I have to agree. Even if you didn't like that change, the moral still remains the same. It was still Peter's responsibility.