The Amazing Spider-Man Clive Owen audtioning for Kraven The Hunter?

[©KAW]

LOL, Peter's mask was off in front of a train load of people. 5 seconds or not, there was no need for that scene. But I suppose you'll come up with some more sentimental shenanigans for why they just had write that in there.

You and I both know that Sam Raimi doesn't know how to control his cheese, he lets it ooze out all over everything in its path.

 

[Spider-Fan]

LOL, Peter's mask was off in front of a train load of people. 5 seconds or not, there was no need for that scene. But I suppose you'll come up with some more sentimental shenanigans for why they just had write that in there.

You and I both know that Sam Raimi doesn't know how to control his cheese, he lets it ooze out all over everything in its path.

He went a little overboard in SM3, but he didn't overload the first 2 films with cheese for no reason. He put cheesey things in when appropriate to lighten the mood. What is wrong with that? Spider-Man comics are very often cheesy. You act like the entire movie was silly, when it wasn't. For the most part, SM2 was dramatic. The dramatic scenes to cheesey scenes ratio is VASTLY dominated by drama.

Also, who cares if the train people saw his face there? They don't know Peter personally, so how is that going to effect him? Plus, there is a writing reason for why it was done that way, but I'll spare you the explanation cause I know you'll just scoff at it and say "LULZ, Raimi is the worstest director EVAH! He took Peter's mask off in a fight a whole 4 times, LULZ!!!"

Also, you didn't reply to this point: Why should directors not have lattitude to do their own vision of the character, yet comic writers can revise the character and do their own thing without complaint?

 

[©KAW]

Raimi made a choice in how to approach his narrative. He wanted to emphasize Spider-Man's sacrifices. How does he do it? By focusing his films on his love for MJ. Why? Because he wants the audience to have something tangible that they can grab onto and recognize. This is not bad writing. It's a narrative choice. All films have to decide on a narrative approach. That is basic film 101.

Really, basic film 101 got him fired. It would have been okay if he only used this method once, but three times, how dumb does he think the audience is? Don't answer that, Mary Jane being kidnapped thrice in a row tells me all I need to know. Poor writing and direction is what it is.

And again, comic book writers all have their own takes on characters. There is no definitive Spider-Man. Some people are Lee era fans. Others like Benids's USM. Others love McFarlene's run, etc. To Stan Lee, Gwen Stacy was the one for Peter. But, another writer had an idea to kill her off. Is this an injustice to the vision of Spider-Man? Why should filmmakers not be allowed to view the character in their own way when comic writers have been doing this for years?

The blueprint should always be Stan Lee's run. It's fine to mix things up or even change some things. But not to the point where the characters are unrecognizable in character. Or to the point where you have to start blending characters (MJ/Gwen and Octavius/Connors) together or a have super-villain suddenly become Uncle Ben's killer, I look at this as more poor writing and the wrong person at the helm of Spider-Man.

The reboot is not out yet. The new direction for Spider-Man might be worse. It might be better. There is a difference between being optimistic for it, and being in blind love with it. I have no problem with guys looking forward to the film, but saying this film is already TDK like some I have seen doing I think is premature.

I've seen three films based on Spider-Man, and I was impressed with none of them. The worst that can happen is they produce more mediocre Spider-Man films. Stuff happens, I've been through it with Batman, I'll go through it with Spidey.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Really, basic film 101 got him fired. It would have been okay if he only used this method once, but three times, how dumb does he think the audience is? Don't answer that, Mary Jane being kidnapped thrice in a row tells me all I need to know. Poor writing and direction is what it is.

Basic film 101 also made him get hired for the series 4 times, made him millions of dollars, and yielded a film that in 2004 was the best reviewed film of the year (til The Incredibles came out). Yeah, basic film 101 failed Raimi

The blueprint should always be Stan Lee's run. It's fine to mix things up or even change some things. But not to the point where the characters are unrecognizable in character. Or to the point where you have to start blending characters (MJ/Gwen and Octavius/Connors), I look at this as more poor writing and the wrong person at the helm of Spider-Man.

You say the blueprint should be Stan's run, but the reboot is mostly based off Bendis's USM. Why are you looking forward to this new film?

Once again, there is no definitive Spider-Man. Raimi had his own take. He made films about that take. Comic writers do this on a daily basis. Why is Raimi a poor director for not doing Spider-Man films as Lee would have directed them?

I've seen three films based on Spider-Man, and I was impressed with none of them. The worst that can happen is they produce more mediocre Spider-Man films. Stuff happens, I've been through it with Batman, I'll go through it with Spidey.

You see, this is not where I have a problem with you. You have a right to your opinion.

It is just when you go off on tangents about the Raimi films and act like you're the only man with a correct opinion when I begin to debate you. Cause you're no more right than any Raimi fan not excited for the reboot is. But, you don't acknowledge it.

 

[chaseter]

*billions

 

[©KAW]

Basic film 101 also made him get hired for the series 4 times, made him millions of dollars, and yielded a film that in 2004 was the best reviewed film of the year (til The Incredibles came out). Yeah, basic film 101 failed Raimi

And yet, he and the rest of his Stooges were tossed out like rag dolls, with not even a warning. Maybe Sony finally woke up and realized that they wasn't worth those millions.

You say the blueprint should be Stan's run, but the reboot is mostly based off Bendis's USM. Why are you looking forward to this new film?

It's Spider-Man and it's not directed by Raimi nor star Tobey & Kirsten, and doesn't follow the previous films...that alone gets me to buy a ticket. I'll take my chances with the good or the bad.

Once again, there is no definitive Spider-Man. Raimi had his own take. He made films about that take. Comic writers do this on a daily basis. Why is Raimi a poor director for not doing Spider-Man films as Lee would have directed them?

He's a poor director, because his style is cheesy and he likes to work from weak written scripts. Maybe he should have used Stan Lee's take as a blueprint, he'd probably be directing SM4 right now.

You see, this is not where I have a problem with you. You have a right to your opinion.

It is just when you go off on tangents about the Raimi films and act like you're the only man with a correct opinion when I begin to debate you. Cause you're no more right than any Raimi fan not excited for the reboot is. But, you don't acknowledge it.

What are you talking about, you're giving your opinion and I'm giving mine? So we disagree completely with the writing and direction of these Spider-Man films. So what? You're the one bringing up critics, how much money the films made Raimi, and what other people think of the movies. That's going off on a tangent.

 

[david icke]

LOL, Peter's mask was off in front of a train load of people. 5 seconds or not, there was no need for that scene. But I suppose you'll come up with some more sentimental shenanigans for why they just had write that in there.

You think you're going to tease out *another* re-run of why that scene works, and what it's intention was? That it was dealing with the fact that not everyone trusts spider-man, and him gaining that trust to the point no-one would grass him up?
If you are against 'sentimental' type scenes in spider-man stories, you are already going off course with what is in the books.
Sometimes there's nothing better in the books than seeing Spidey gain the trust of one person, or a small group of folk he has just saved, despite the mistrust surrounding him in general. It makes the gratitude all the sweeter.

 

[Ajendo]

Wait, do people still think it was Raimi and Maguire's doing that got the spidey movies it's $billions??? Hmm, I think the words, brand name and goodwill need to be explored. SM3, universally regarded as, rubbish is the highest and fastest grossing of all 3 movies, which ultimately proves that, the spider-man brand name is one fat cash cow, however, after the abysmal movie that sm3 was, the potential adverse effect on this new movie shouldn't be ignored and should rightfully be expected and this is where Webb/Vanderbilt and Sony are going to have to create some serious magic.

 

[david icke]

Wait, do people still think it was Raimi and Maguire's doing that got the spidey movies it's $billions??? Hmm, I think the words, brand name and goodwill need to be explored. SM3, universally regarded as, rubbish is the highest and fastest grossing of all 3 movies, which ultimately proves that, the spider-man brand name is one fat cash cow, however, after the abysmal movie that sm3 was, the potential adverse effect on this new movie shouldn't be ignored and should rightfully be expected and this is where Webb/Vanderbilt and Sony are going to have to create some serious magic.

Universally despised, dude it got mixed reviews, it was not something like Batman and Robin, something that would put a serious dent on folk wanting to turn up to see a Spidey film.

If you are seriously suggestng that just anyone can swan in and create a successful superhero franchise, you would do well to look at other failures, household names like Superman and Batman included.
Look at Superman Returns, did the brand name do that any good in creating an ongoing series with that director and actor, hmmmm?
You're just being hyperbolic here, and to what end I don't know, sounds like you are just trying to get a reaction. This is after all, a Kraven the Hunter thread.

 

[Ajendo]

Universally despised, dude it got mixed reviews, it was not something like Batman and Robin, something that would put a serious dent on folk wanting to turn up to see a Spidey film.

I never used the word despised. To despise something and to regard something as rubbish aren't quite the same thing. Besides, that's beside the point. The fact is, SM3 was universally less well recieved by many people but judging by the revenue and profits the film made, one would think BO takings didn't reflect such opinions.

If you are seriously suggestng that just anyone can swan in and create a successful superhero franchise, you would do well to look at other failures, household names like Superman and Batman included.

Relax, I'm not suggesting just anyone could have made spider-man successful. However, any half decent director could have done what Raimi did or even better or heck even slightly worse with the first movie at the very least and it still would have made a killing at the BO.
One, the spider-man brand name on a cinematic level is epic to begin with. Two, spider-man back in 2002 was a novelty movie experience, he hadn't had cinematic exposure that spanned 20/30 years like bats and supes. Point is, there was nothing particulraly special about Raimi's vision for these movies, as long as a director didn't pull a schumacker with the films, the movies (sequals) would do fine because spider-man is arguably a far more interesting and relatable character.
Where Raimi did shine, however and suckered many people that didn't think much of his spidey movies into expecting a better experience was, the movie's marketing campaigns. The trailers for the spidey movies were fantastic and anyone who watched them and didn't think they were going to get something amazing were either blind or just dont give a f**k about comics and such like. I can only speak for myself here but I was sure lulled into these movies under false pretenses.

Look at Superman Returns, did the brand name do that any good in creating an ongoing series with that director and actor, hmmmm?

Uh I'm not sure if your up to date with current events but superman has had a cinematic career that spanned 30 years by the time SR came out not to mention the various televised incarnations of the character over the years and continuing. Superman has never really left the public domain and thats just purely on a visual level alone and need I remind you that when you have the same comic-hammy cliched villain in all the films with the same lame goal of course it's not going to be enough to save the movie. Had SR used a much better story and with diferent and more imposing villains, SR would have been better recieved but in the end, it was the same old tired stuff we've seen before, nothing new, nothing really remarkable.

You're just being hyperbolic here, and to what end I don't know, sounds like you are just trying to get a reaction. This is after all, a Kraven the Hunter thread.

Not really, I've made an observation and am giving my opinion on what I've read by certain people around here accordingly.

 

[Spider-Fan]

And yet, he and the rest of his Stooges were tossed out like rag dolls, with not even a warning. Maybe Sony finally woke up and realized that they wasn't worth those millions.

Again. He made 3 Spider-Man films with the cast and crew, and was hired for a 4th. No matter how you try and spin it negatively, that is called a success. If Sony truly thought Raimi sucked, he would have been fired after SM1. Not after 3 films.

It's Spider-Man and it's not directed by Raimi nor star Tobey & Kirsten, and doesn't follow the previous films...that alone gets me to buy a ticket. I'll take my chances with the good or the bad.

But, it is not having that covetted Lee blueprint you said a Spider-Man film needs.

He's a poor director, because his style is cheesy and he likes to work from weak written scripts. Maybe he should have used Stan Lee's take as a blueprint, he'd probably be directing SM4 right now.

You are aware that Raimi's Spider-Man was inspired from Lee's era, right? So, he did in fact use this "blueprint" you're calling for. Also, you keep focusing on him not doing SM4, but you ignore the fact he did 3 films before that. You keep trying to make it look like Sony hates Raimi and thought he did crap films, but the fact is they let him make 3 films and nearly a 4th. If Sony hated him so much, why was he the Spider-Man franchise for so many years? I'll tell you this, companies don't do that if they're unhappy.

What are you talking about, you're giving your opinion and I'm giving mine? So we disagree completely with the writing and direction of these Spider-Man films. So what? You're the one bringing up critics, how much money the films made Raimi, and what other people think of the movies. That's going off on a tangent.

No it is not going off on a tangent, cause you're continually trying to pass of your opinion as fact and that Raimi fans are delusional morons, when you simply just can't accept reality that a lot of people loved his films and don't feel he made these great abominations with the Spider-Man name that you feel he did. If you would stop acting like such an elitist about your opinion, then this conversation and my pointing out why you're wrong wouldn't be necessary.

You can try writing me off as a "Raimi worshipper" as you like to say, but the fact is I am not in some minority that liked his Spider-Man films.

 

[david icke]

Uh I'm not sure if your up to date with current events but superman has had a cinematic career that spanned 30 years by the time SR came out not to mention the various televised incarnations of the character over the years and continuing. Superman has never really left the public domain and thats just purely on a visual level alone and need I remind you that when you have the same comic-hammy cliched villain in all the films with the same lame goal of course it's not going to be enough to save the movie. Had SR used a much better story and with diferent and more imposing villains, SR would have been better recieved but in the end, it was the same old tired stuff we've seen before, nothing new, nothing really remarkable.

Regardless, (edit : they are both as well known as each other, and exposure on tv can be either positive or negative, as in over exposure, or under. they are both icons and well known by everyone, Spider-man was like this *before* the movies.)
The point is, you said that Spider-man's movie success was not down to Raimi and McGuire at all. Here, I gave an example of a Superhero who is as well known and iconic as Spider-man, whose brand name did not carry it's way into it being a successful ongoing series. like you accused the Spider-man brand of doing.

Not really, I've made an observation and am giving my opinion on what I've read by certain people around here accordingly.

"Around here", exactly, you're starting a discussion from scratch on Spider-man3, in a Kraven the Hunter thread. It would be different if it were something that had spun out of the thread discussion naturally. But starting off a post/discussion like this is not exactly what this thread is for is it?
and i don't think it's entirely coincidental that it came right after yet another Raimi fans vs pro-reeboter argument. So, that's why it felt to me, like you were wanting a reaction from a Raimi fan.

anyway, i'm not going into this discussion any further, it's not the place for it. All the threads are starting to turn into the same Raimi vs probooters bs.

 

[Ajendo]

Regardless, (edit : they are both as well known as each other, and exposure on tv can be either positive or negative, as in over exposure, or under. they are both icons and well known by everyone, Spider-man was like this *before* the movies.)

Do you even read what you post? Yes, it's a well known and documented fact that spider-man had the various incarnations and visual exposure prior to his cinematic debut that superman had because we all know the odd number of cartoon shows and the nicholas hammond tv series can compete on an equal playing field of exposure the same way superman had the george reeves show, the four christopher reeve superman films, the various superman cartoons and of course the tv shows (e.g. lois and clark) and of course one of the most successful and long running contemporary tv shows of all time, smallville

The point is, you said that Spider-man's movie success was not down to Raimi and McGuire at all. Here, I gave an example of a Superhero who is as well known and iconic as Spider-man, whose brand name did not carry it's way into it being a successful ongoing series. like you accused the Spider-man brand of doing.

And I stand by it. Any competent director could have done what Raimi did. It would have taken an exceptional bad director to ruin spider-man and that just wasn't going to happen.

"Around here", exactly, you're starting a discussion from scratch on Spider-man3, in a Kraven the Hunter thread. It would be different if it were something that had spun out of the thread discussion naturally. But starting off a post/discussion like this is not exactly what this thread is for is it?
and i don't think it's entirely coincidental that it came right after yet another Raimi fans vs pro-reeboter argument. So, that's why it felt to me, like you were wanting a reaction from a Raimi fan.

You've essentially expressed a rationale as to why I made the comment that I made and that being said, it's hardly starting a discussion from scratch as you suggested is it? I was commenting on the posts that preceded mine.

anyway, i'm not going into this discussion any further, it's not the place for it. All the threads are starting to turn into the same Raimi vs probooters bs.

Smartest thing you've said yet.

 

[david icke]

Do you even read what you post? Yes, it's a well known and documented fact that spider-man had the various incarnations and visual exposure prior to his cinematic debut that superman had because we all know the odd number of cartoon shows and the nicholas hammond tv series can compete on an equal playing field of exposure the same way superman had the george reeves show, the four christopher reeve superman films, the various superman cartoons and of course the tv shows (e.g. lois and clark) and of course one of the most successful and long running contemporary tv shows of all time, smallville

Dude, do you even use punctuation? sheesh. Try one of these, or one of these, every now and again. That paragraph is a real eyesore to read.

Spider-man is an icon, that means the man in the street knows him, regardless of how many tv shows or whatnot hey have had. He was one of the 'primal three' superheroes alongside Superman and Batman. If you asked someone, who had no knowledge of comics or tv shows, to name a superhero, it would invariably be one of those guys.
Bryan Singer said about the X-Men in regards to Spider-man's pre-movie popularity: 'It's not like people generally know the X-Men, it's not like Spider-man, where even my mother, who has no interest in these kind of things, knows about Spider-man and that he has webs and the red and blue costume.'

And I stand by it. Any competent director could have done what Raimi did. It would have taken an exceptional bad director to ruin spider-man and that just wasn't going to happen.

I think you are living in a candyland where all movie adaptations turn out well, and most directors make good movies. Please give me directions to this candyland.

You've essentially expressed a rationale as to why I made the comment that I made and that being said, it's hardly starting a discussion from scratch as you suggested is it? I was commenting on the posts that preceded mine.

Not really to my mind, you were starting up a whole new angle, but it was in keeping with setting up a Raimi fans vs pro-rebooters argument.

Smartest thing you've said yet.

you can always tell when folk have fragile egos and feel threatened, they start questioning or insulting your intelligence instead of sticking to the facts and debating. That's twice you've done that in response to me, I'm not that into recieving compliments, but if you want to keep throwing them my way by proxy, knock yourself out, myself, I'd rather stick to the debate and not get so mushy.

 

[Ajendo]

Dude, do you even use punctuation? sheesh. Try one of these, or one of these, every now and again. That paragraph is a real eyesore to read.

Didn't think it was all that essential, seeing as it's only an internet forum and the fact that you like to spell Maguire as, Mcguire. Thought I was evening out the playing field but no matter.

Spider-man is an icon, that means the man in the street knows him, regardless of how many tv shows or whatnot hey have had. He was one of the 'primal three' superheroes alongside Superman and Batman. If you asked someone, who had no knowledge of comics or tv shows, to name a superhero, it would invariably be one of those guys.
Bryan Singer said about the X-Men in regards to Spider-man's pre-movie popularity: 'It's not like people generally know the X-Men, it's not like Spider-man, where even my mother, who has no interest in these kind of things, knows about Spider-man and that he has webs and the red and blue costume.'

Blah blah blah, whats your point? You're adding nothing new here and not even responding to what I was getting at.
The fact is, yes, spider-man is well known but to see him on screen for the first time in 2002 was a massive event. Just like batman and supeman that came out decades earlier, they too were huge events. Whoever would have directed spider-man back in 2002 as long as they weren't known to be a crappy director would at least BO wise achieed the exact same or similar results because SPIDER-MAN BEING ON A CINEMATIC SCREEN FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS A NOVELTY.

People had their fill with batman and superman, they new more or less what to expect from a cinematic point of view, the same couldn't be said for spider-man. I don't know how your not understanding this but I can't make this any more simpler.

I think you are living in a candyland where all movie adaptations turn out well, and most directors make good movies. Please give me directions to this candyland.

Yeah sure, it's a simple bus ride, just after "Sam Raimi is the only director that can make spidey films" station, which just so happens to be opposite "Tobey Maguire is the best peter parker ever" street.
Dude, your little comment just proves you can't read and you see what you want to see, feeding your mind with what's not actually there.

Not really to my mind, you were starting up a whole new angle, but it was in keeping with setting up a Raimi fans vs pro-rebooters argument.

Lol, well your mind is hardly a reliable source to go by. So, lets just forget about what your mind is or isn't telling you.

you can always tell when folk have fragile egos and feel threatened, they start questioning or insulting your intelligence instead of sticking to the facts and debating. That's twice you've done that in response to me, I'm not that into recieving compliments, but if you want to keep throwing them my way by proxy, knock yourself out, myself, I'd rather stick to the debate and not get so mushy.

Yes, the same old cliched tactic of a rather lame, peer analysis. What ever you say, champ.

 

[david icke]

Didn't think it was all that essential, seeing as it's only an internet forum and the fact that you like to spell Maguire as, Mcguire. Thought I was evening out the playing field but no matter.

dude, weak comparison, seriously. Of course it makes a difference to make reading more legible. A slight difference on name spelling, where both versions actually exist? lol, not a comparison, more straw grasping in an attempt to feel superior.

Blah blah blah, whats your point? You're adding nothing new here and not even responding to what I was getting at.
The fact is, yes, spider-man is well known but to see him on screen for the first time in 2002 was a massive event. Just like batman and supeman that came out decades earlier, they too were huge events. Whoever would have directed spider-man back in 2002 as long as they weren't known to be a crappy director would at least BO wise achieed the exact same or similar results because SPIDER-MAN BEING ON A CINEMATIC SCREEN FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS A NOVELTY.

People had their fill with batman and superman, they new more or less what to expect from a cinematic point of view, the same couldn't be said for spider-man. I don't know how your not understanding this but I can't make this any more simpler.

So, how does this amazing argument account for the fact that Spider-man 2 did close to the same BO as Spider-man1, if it was only down to the novelty of seeing him onscreen FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Not to mention TDK was the 6th Batman movie, and it's massive BO was down to the quality of the movie, folk had only had their fill of Batman when a majorly bad movie had been released in '97.

You can take BO and attribute it to many things, but by the 3rd movie, the novelty is over, SM3 made such big money because it came after 2 movies that were very well received and folk wanted to see what happened next.

edit: Oh, and btw you were tripping over your own point(despite there being no commas to trip up over), on one hand you said Superman had the advantage of exposure on tv and movies etc, and no other superhero could compete with that, and on the other hand you are saying Spider-man had the advantage of not having decent live action exposure before.
Can you see here why your point is confusing? Yes? I sincerely hope so.

Yeah sure, it's a simple bus ride, just after "Sam Raimi is the only director that can make spidey films" station, which just so happens to be opposite "Tobey Maguire is the best peter parker ever" street.
Dude, your little comment just proves you can't read and you see what you want to see, feeding your mind with what's not actually there.

lol, who ever said Raimi is the only director who could make a decent Spider-man movie? Again, like many, you attempt to change the goalposts of the argument.

Lol, well your mind is hardly a reliable source to go by. So, lets just forget about what your mind is or isn't telling you.

Great comeback, worth waiting on, not similar to your other digs at all.

Yes, the same old cliched tactic of a rather lame, peer analysis. What ever you say, champ.

Dude, you ain't a peer of mine, you have to earn your stripes before you get in my gang.

 

[Ajendo]

So, how does this amazing argument account for the fact that Spider-man 2 did close to the same BO as Spider-man1, if it was only down to the novelty of seeing him onscreen FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Once again, you're only seeing what you want to see. Where did I say that spidey's success was only down to the novelty of it being his first cinematic outing? Fact is, I didn't. I highlighted and emphasised the point as a focal factor but I didn't say anything about it being the only reason. Spider-Man is by and large the most popular superhero, surpassing superman and batman. I've said it in my posts, there are many people who enjoyed Raimi's movies and the ending to spider-man 1 was just screaming sequel. Couple that with the goodwill of the spider-man brand name and of course these films are going to make money. As long as you don't hire a renowned crappy director and actors, it doesn't matter who's involved, the movies will make money. I even talked about the marketing campaign for these movies, I said they've been fantastic and of course it's going to put butts in seats. However, the gargantuan mess that was spider-man 3 was the fastest and highest grossing of the 3 movies which only proves my point.

Not to mention TDK was the 6th Batman movie, and it's massive BO was down to the quality of the movie, folk had only had their fill of Batman when a majorly bad movie had been released in '97.

Yeah and what's your point? I'm not disputing that. It sure wasn't the batman brand name that gave TDK its numbers and that's where the difference is between batman and spider-man is in this instance. TDK made a killing because the film as you've said was down to the quality of the movie. Batman was tired by batman forever and B and R was the final nail in the coffin. Begins comes along, does modestly well at the BO but simultaneously injects new life, new vision and proves batman can be a whole lot more. Then TDK comes along and launches a viral marketing crusade, Ledger dies and his death ADDS to the hype of what is already looking to be a great movie, the movie comes out and delivers. The movie doesn't rely on the brand name like spider-man does because the batman brand name isn't as viable as spider-man's.

You can take BO and attribute it to many things, but by the 3rd movie, the novelty is over, SM3 made such big money because it came after 2 movies that were very well received and folk wanted to see what happened next.

That was part of it but not entirely. There are many people who didn't even see the first 2 movies but went to see the third simply because the way the movie was marketed, it was set to be dark and epic. If it was just down to wanting to see what happens next, sm3 would have done similar numbers to sm2 but that's not how it worked out. SM3 made close to a $billion in no time.

edit: Oh, and btw you were tripping over your own point(despite there being no commas to trip up over), on one hand you said Superman had the advantage of exposure on tv and movies etc, and no other superhero could compete with that, and on the other hand you are saying Spider-man had the advantage of not having decent live action exposure before.
Can you see here why your point is confusing? Yes? I sincerely hope so.

Do you even know what you're talking about? I mean, I must come off as confusing to you because, jim, you confuse self. Fact. Who said anything about no other superhero can compete with superman? Try to keep up. I mentioned supes, bats and spidey and compared their respective on screen visual exposure. I also added that With superman, people knew what to expect, at the very least he's had over 35 years of onscreen viewership, spider-man to date has had...8 and not only that, SR wasn't so well recieved because it was the same old same old. I guarantee you, with What Nolan and Goyer will do with this new MOS film, it's going to be a very different outcome to what SR recieved.

lol, who ever said Raimi is the only director who could make a decent Spider-man movie? Again, like many, you attempt to change the goalposts of the argument.

Actually for someone who claims to read every post in all the theads on this particular board, I'm surprised or maybe I shouln't be that you havn't picked up on such comments. Quite a few people on these boards have said such and your buddy, spideyhero12 would be guilty of this more than most.

Dude, you ain't a peer of mine, you have to earn your stripes before you get in my gang.

See, that's the difference between you and I. You need a gang to affiliate yourself with and feel comfortable on an internet forum. To me, I couldn't care less. I regard every poster here the same, faceless usernames with either something interesting or stupid to say. Of course, you fall into the latter.

 

[©KAW]

Again. He made 3 Spider-Man films with the cast and crew, and was hired for a 4th. No matter how you try and spin it negatively, that is called a success. If Sony truly thought Raimi sucked, he would have been fired after SM1. Not after 3 films.

And they also wouldn't have fired him if they wanted to continue this success, but they did. Do you think Sony doesn't like MONEY, no, they realize that their Spider-Man movies were going no where creatively with Raimi at the helm. SM3 deadlocked the franchise. Ever wonder why all the Spider-Man films follow the same tired formula over and over again, that's Raimi's doing. Uncreative and cheesy.

But, it is not having that covetted Lee blueprint you said a Spider-Man film needs.

Marc Webb or any director will have to find out the hard way what happens when you move away from Lee's blueprint. Your franchise might get deadlocked and rebooted...and you and your cast might get fired. Hopefully, the next time this happens, MARVEL will have Spidey's film rights back.

You are aware that Raimi's Spider-Man was inspired from Lee's era, right? So, he did in fact use this "blueprint" you're calling for. Also, you keep focusing on him not doing SM4, but you ignore the fact he did 3 films before that. You keep trying to make it look like Sony hates Raimi and thought he did crap films, but the fact is they let him make 3 films and nearly a 4th. If Sony hated him so much, why was he the Spider-Man franchise for so many years? I'll tell you this, companies don't do that if they're unhappy.

No, I'm making it look as Sony finally realized that it's 'Spider-Man' who's the the bread winner, not Maguire or Raimi. This is where the cheesy direction and poor decision making on Raimi's part take root. Even though you give this guy one the greatest comic book characters or all time, and he can use the blue print of Stan Lee's take (he decides to make up his own twisted tales) and still screws it up royally.

Let's make Sandman Uncle Ben's killer, let's make Spider-Man a mute with no personality and give him organics, let's make MJ a jealous, boring & unkempt tart. How long has Raimi talked about evolving Peter Parker, three movies and he's still the same damn character he was in High School. No character development. This is why he shouldn't be at the helm, he lacks the skills and the decision making to put together a quality Spider-Man film.

No it is not going off on a tangent, cause you're continually trying to pass of your opinion as fact and that Raimi fans are delusional morons, when you simply just can't accept reality that a lot of people loved his films and don't feel he made these great abominations with the Spider-Man name that you feel he did. If you would stop acting like such an elitist about your opinion, then this conversation and my pointing out why you're wrong wouldn't be necessary.

You can try writing me off as a "Raimi worshipper" as you like to say, but the fact is I am not in some minority that liked his Spider-Man films.

Okay, let me see if I can try this. You may indeed be right, it may do me some good. Here we go:

I do not think Sam Raimi fans are delusional, I do not think Sam Raimi fans worship him...even though they pretty much say so in their sigs, and they act as if they care nothing for the characters of Spider-Man, but only to live and serve their lord and master Raimi...

Sorry, I couldn't do it, I tried. t:

 

[david icke]

Sorry, I couldn't do it, I tried. t:

LOL.

Ajendo, buddy, I will read your latest post tomorrow, despite what I said you can join my gang anytime, there are currently no members but myself, lol.

 

[chaseter]

Raimi didn't get fired, he walked.

 

[©KAW]

Yeah, he walked to his car after being fired.

 

[chaseter]

You made the claim, post a link that proves that he was fired.

 

[©KAW]

Oh, so he is still signed to SM4 as reported?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Oh, so he is still signed to SM4 as reported?

Walking doesn't mean fired. Walking means resigning. By your logic, Nixon was fired from being President. Which, he wasn't.

And they also wouldn't have fired him if they wanted to continue this success, but they did. Do you think Sony doesn't like MONEY, no, they realize that their Spider-Man movies were going no where creatively with Raimi at the helm. SM3 deadlocked the franchise. Ever wonder why all the Spider-Man films follow the same tired formula over and over again, that's Raimi's doing. Uncreative and cheesy.

Once again, your opinion. The Spider-Man series obviously had somewhere to go since Sam signed on to make another film. But, the film that was going to continue the story somehow got muddled. We don't know how or who was mostly responsible.

Marc Webb or any director will have to find out the hard way what happens when you move away from Lee's blueprint. Your franchise might get deadlocked and rebooted...and you and your cast might get fired. Hopefully, the next time this happens, MARVEL will have Spidey's film rights back.

While Lee is my favorite Spider-Man era, I recognize other great Spider-Man eras. You don't have to follow Lee's formula to adapt Spider-Man.

No, I'm making it look as Sony finally realized that it's 'Spider-Man' who's the the bread winner, not Maguire or Raimi. This is where the cheesy direction and poor decision making on Raimi's part take root. Even though you give this guy one the greatest comic book characters or all time, and he can use the blue print of Stan Lee's take (he decides to make up his own twisted tales) and still screws it up royally.

Let's make Sandman Uncle Ben's killer, let's make Spider-Man a mute with no personality and give him organics, let's make MJ a jealous, boring & unkempt tart. How long has Raimi talked about evolving Peter Parker, three movies and he's still the same damn character he was in High School. No character development. This is why he shouldn't be at the helm, he lacks the skills and the decision making to put together a quality Spider-Man film.

You know, a great filmmaker named James Cameron also thought organics were a good idea. Peter did evolve as a character in Raimi's films, you just choose not to recognize it out of your bias against the films and Raimi as a filmmaker. You call all of his films cheese, but when I throw you a non-cheesy Raimi film, you ignore me. Because you're biased.

I don't defend Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer. I have said countless times that was a bad idea.

Okay, let me see if I can try this. You may indeed be right, it may do me some good. Here we go:

I do not think Sam Raimi fans are delusional, I do not think Sam Raimi fans worship him...even though they pretty much say so in their sigs, and they act as if they care nothing for the characters of Spider-Man, but only to live and serve their lord and master Raimi...

Sorry, I couldn't do it, I tried. t:

This is what seperates you from people like DACMAN or Slag. DACMAN and Slag make good points when debating the series and don't condescend people whom like the Raimi films. You show nothing but a bias against Raimi, make illogical points, and have an elitist view of "your Spider-Man." If you want me to take anything you say seriously, learn to look at issues from both sides and take yourself of that pedistal

 

[chaseter]

Oh, so he is still signed to SM4 as reported?

So in your little world, resigning = fired?