I am now skepticism-free.

[Anno_Domini]

But it didn't end the franchise. There was going to be a Spider-Man 4. Raimi just walked away from it because he couldn't make it to his standards.

It was kinda the end of the franchise because Avi and Sony kept dipping their ideas into the story for the next film, Spider-Man 4, and Raimi finally walked off. So, in a way, S-M 3 did kill the franchise, only because Raimi was a smart director who decided to walk off unlike Schumacher.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm in fact agreeing that nothing new is going to be said about the movie and that everyone at this point knows how they feel about it. I'm also saying that holding up Chris' post as if it was wrong or ironically funny isn't really fair because he might still like the film. It isn't as though the film is universally hated as with some of the other films he'd mentioned. I think at best, most folks think it's okay or fun. Even at RT, with people still dumping on the movie 5 years later, the majority of people still like the film. And unlike several of the films mentioned, it wasn't a flop. It was quite successful.

Batman Forever isn't actually a bad movie to some people, so I can't say BF should be in the list of really awful third films out there and while Spider-Man 3 is a little better, it's by far the worst film of the trilogy and that's what makes people disregard that film as a great CBM and that's why Raimi's trilogy never comes to mind really when thinking of a great trilogy.

Plus, to say it was quite successful isn't saying much either. The Transformers films were successful as well. That doesn't make those films great at all. Nor was Batman Forever a flop.

 

[El Payaso]

Dude, you need to stop rewriting history simply because of a chip about Raimi.

So you should learn the meaning of the word "End"?

The story is well-documented. They were going to make Spider-Man 4. That's fact.

They were going to do Batman Triumphant, Joel Schumacher directing, Scarecrow the villain. That's fact. I even heard the name of Jeff Goldblum.

But it wasn't made and that meant the end of the Batman franchise with Batman & Robin.

Raimi was unhappy with all the scripts they had and decided he couldn't make the release date Sony/Columbia had planned on, so they went with the reboot in order to maintain the rights.

But they could have, in fact, go on with Spider-man 4 and a different director, as it has been done many times. You don't end the franchise, you don't reboot, you go on with the sequel.

Sequel is never made = end of the franchise.

As far as Superman II they had to continue on the film since Donner had already shot a substantial amount of the movie.

And yet the re-shoot a substantial amount of what Donner had filmed.

Whatever the case, Donner was replaced and the sequel was made. Donner's departure didn't mean the end of the franchise, nor it was Lester's departure after Superman III.

Direrctor get replaced and sequels are made. When not, that's the end.

And with Batman Forever obviously the studio had a script they were pleased with even if Burton didn't feel it was right for him. Also Batman Returns wasn't a hit comparable with Spidey 3. Warner Bros. was unhappy with the box office even though the film had a decent performance.

Happy or unhappy with anything, only one of those movies ended the franchise. The other got 2 sequels.

 

[Dragon]

So you should learn the meaning of the word "End"?

You should learn the meaning of the word B***S***.

They were going to do Batman Triumphant, Joel Schumacher directing, Scarecrow the villain. That's fact. I even heard the name of Jeff Goldblum.

But it wasn't made and that meant the end of the Batman franchise with Batman & Robin.

They only mentioned Triumphant before the release of Batman and Robin. After B & R flopped, not a peep. And it was John Travolta for Scarecrow. Yes- John Travolta. As well as Madonna for Harley Quinn.

Spidey 4 was being worked on 2 years after Spidey 3. Not even in the same league.

But they could have, in fact, go on with Spider-man 4 and a different director, as it has been done many times. You don't end the franchise, you don't reboot, you go on with the sequel.

Did you miss the part about there being NO SCRIPT? They had a script for the reboot (Which apparently isn't that great either based on the reviews).

Sequel is never made = end of the franchise.

Raimi walking away two years later was the end of the series (Not the franchise). Not Spidey 3.

And yet the re-shoot a substantial amount of what Donner had filmed.

Not really. They simply shot what was missing and altered some of the script.

Whatever the case, Donner was replaced and the sequel was made. Donner's departure didn't mean the end of the franchise, nor it was Lester's departure after Superman III.

So, of course what happened on the Superman films twenty five years earlier has to be true of the Spider-Man films. Even though the budgets on the Superman films topped out at 40 million dollars versus the 250 million dollar Spider-Man films. Yeah, I can see the parallel.

Direrctor get replaced and sequels are made. When not, that's the end.

And that has nothing to do with Spider-Man. The franchise hasn't ended. The reboot is still part of the franchise.

Happy or unhappy with anything, only one of those movies ended the franchise. The other got 2 sequels.

So did Spider-Man 3. You can live in denial all you want. And BTW- most people liked Spidey 3 t:

 

[Dragon]

It was kinda the end of the franchise because Avi and Sony kept dipping their ideas into the story for the next film, Spider-Man 4, and Raimi finally walked off. So, in a way, S-M 3 did kill the franchise, only because Raimi was a smart director who decided to walk off unlike Schumacher.

Schumacher had no choice. He didn't walk off the film. When B & R flopped, they didn't ask Schumacher back. And it was 8 years before another Batman film was made. Raimi had a choice. Make a **** movie or walk. He walked.

Batman Forever isn't actually a bad movie to some people, so I can't say BF should be in the list of really awful third films out there and while Spider-Man 3 is a little better, it's by far the worst film of the trilogy and that's what makes people disregard that film as a great CBM and that's why Raimi's trilogy never comes to mind really when thinking of a great trilogy.

It depends on who you ask. Most folks enjoyed the Raimi trilogy. That's a fact. It's really only a handful of professional fans who lament them. But it's really funny to watch the TASM boards and see how as expectations for the movie sink the fans who were sure the reboot would blow the Raimi films out of the water are now settling for whatever Sony has crapped out. So I guess we'll be getting five years of people *****ing about TASM too.

Plus, to say it was quite successful isn't saying much either. The Transformers films were successful as well. That doesn't make those films great at all. Nor was Batman Forever a flop.

I said some of the films listed, not all. And its all about opinion. I freely admit that Spidey 3 was subpar. But it's also still entertaining. If financial success doesn't equal a great film, by the same token some folks despising it doesn't mean its a terrible film.

 

[El Payaso]

You should learn the meaning of the word B***S***.

I have read so much SM3 defense to ignore that word.

They only mentioned Triumphant before the release of Batman and Robin. After B & R flopped, not a peep. And it was John Travolta for Scarecrow. Yes- John Travolta. As well as Madonna for Harley Quinn.

And it was never done. Just like SM4.

Spidey 4 was being worked on 2 years after Spidey 3. Not even in the same league.

Never done, led to reboot. Same league.

Did you miss the part about there being NO SCRIPT? They had a script for the reboot (Which apparently isn't that great either based on the reviews).

No matter how good/bad the reboot is. SM3 ended the previous franchise regardless.

Raimi walking away two years later was the end of the series (Not the franchise). Not Spidey 3.

And the lack of interest in a Batman & Robin sequel killed the franchise. SM3 was not and is not considered great.

Not really. They simply shot what was missing and altered some of the script.

Not actually.

The whole Paris sequence and Lois jumping into the Niagara falls sequence was pure Lester. And that was already shot by Donner. Just to mention something

So, of course what happened on the Superman films twenty five years earlier has to be true of the Spider-Man films. Even though the budgets on the Superman films topped out at 40 million dollars versus the 250 million dollar Spider-Man films. Yeah, I can see the parallel.

You should, as they could have done SM4 if they wanted.

And that has nothing to do with Spider-Man. The franchise hasn't ended. The reboot is still part of the franchise.

Sure, as Donner movies never ended, they just did SR and now MoS. Just as they made BB and TDK as part of the same Batman franchise Batman & Robin is part of?

It's just that they decided to not hiring Sam Raimi, Tobey, Kirsten, and maybe retell everything just for the fun.

So did Spider-Man 3. You can live in denial all you want. And BTW- most people liked Spidey 3 t:

Sure, man. Spider-man 4 got approved and was released to a big success. You're not in denial. Everybody else is.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Schumacher had no choice. He didn't walk off the film. When B & R flopped, they didn't ask Schumacher back. And it was 8 years before another Batman film was made. Raimi had a choice. Make a **** movie or walk. He walked.

Schumacher had a choice; he could've walked. Both directors were attached for a fourth movie, but only one decided to walk off. I have yet to hear anything that suggests he had no choice like he would be shot down if he decided to walk. Heck, he was even going to do a fifth movie. He just simply decided to stay on board and helped create a piece of **** for Warner Brothers.

It depends on who you ask. Most folks enjoyed the Raimi trilogy. That's a fact. It's really only a handful of professional fans who lament them. But it's really funny to watch the TASM boards and see how as expectations for the movie sink the fans who were sure the reboot would blow the Raimi films out of the water are now settling for whatever Sony has crapped out. So I guess we'll be getting five years of people *****ing about TASM too.

I wouldn't say "most folks" enjoyed Spider-Man 3 though. A lot of people enjoy the first and second films, but the entire trilogy as a whole? S-M 3 ruined that for some people, while the other half, yes, they did enjoy S-M 3 thus the entire trilogy as a whole, but in no way can it ever contend with being a great trilogy in the ranks of the original Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

And I don't necessarily think TAS-M will blow the Raimi films out of the water. I simply want it to be better than Spider-Man 3 as I give that film a 6/10. Being a 7/10 or hopefully a 8/10 will be enough for me. And I think it will get that score from me after I watch it.

I said some of the films listed, not all. And its all about opinion. I freely admit that Spidey 3 was subpar. But it's also still entertaining. If financial success doesn't equal a great film, by the same token some folks despising it doesn't mean its a terrible film.

Then that also means it doesn't mean it's an entertaining movie either if some say it is. I certainly didn't enjoy it as a whole. A few scenes? Sure. Was it a TERRIBLE movie like Batman & Robin? Not really because it doesn't make me feel like it's a comedy as B&R, but it does make me shake my head in disappointment with the choices that movie made because it has some redeeming factors that could've made the film feel awesome and up there with Raimi's other Spidey films.

 

[Dragon]

And it was never done. Just like SM4.

Pre-production was started on 4 money was spent. Raimi and Tobey were paid. Nothing was done on Triumphant.

Never done, led to reboot. Same league.

Wait- you said 3 led to a reboot.

No matter how good/bad the reboot is. SM3 ended the previous franchise regardless.

Read and (hopefully) learn.

http://moviehole.net/201255258superhero-movies-that-fell-apart-sam-raimis-spider-man-4

And the lack of interest in a Batman & Robin sequel killed the franchise. SM3 was not and is not considered great.

Uh.. No. Lack of box office is what killed B&R and any sequel. Spidey 3 might not have been great, but it made a ****load at the box office. Thus interest in a sequel was definitely there.

Not actually.

The whole Paris sequence and Lois jumping into the Niagara falls sequence was pure Lester. And that was already shot by Donner. Just to mention something

Did I not say they shot what was missing and altered the script?

You should, as they could have done SM4 if they wanted.

Nope. Because with Sam leaving, so too was Tobey leaving. Without Tobey it wouldn't be a legitimate sequel. So they needed a reboot.

Sure, as Donner movies never ended, they just did SR and now MoS.Just as they made BB and TDK as part of the same Batman franchise Batman & Robin is part of?

Wow, you really struggle with all of this. A 20 year gap between films is definitely the end of a franchise. An 8 year gap with a complete change in tone and approach because they wanted the audience to forget the previous film is the end of a franchise. Trying to do a sequel and then scrambling to make another film to maintain the rights is, by definition, continuing the franchise.

It's just that they decided to not hiring Sam Raimi, Tobey, Kirsten, and maybe retell everything just for the fun.

But as the above article, and the tons of others you can find online explain, Raimi and Tobey were hired. Contracts had beren signed, bank accounts had been increased. Sam walked. Tobey walked with him.

Sure, man. Spider-man 4 got approved and was released to a big success. You're not in denial. Everybody else is.

It was definitely approved. Obviously it wasn't released. And Spidey 3 certainly had an impact considering all the heartache you've suffered over it for the past 5 years.

 

[El Payaso]

Pre-production was started on 4 money was spent. Raimi and Tobey were paid. Nothing was done on Triumphant.

Okay, let me know when it's the opening day, would ya?

Wait- you said 3 led to a reboot.

More than saying it, it's what we're getting.

Read and (hopefully) learn.

http://moviehole.net/201255258superhero-movies-that-fell-apart-sam-raimis-spider-man-4

Oh, so production never started?

I guess that was the end of the franchise.

Uh.. No. Lack of box office is what killed B&R and any sequel. Spidey 3 might not have been great, but it made a ****load at the box office. Thus interest in a sequel was definitely there.

Had it been great, we'd have SM4.

Did I not say they shot what was missing and altered the script?

They re-shot Lois threatening her own life to expose Clark's identity and other already made scenes.

Nope. Because with Sam leaving, so too was Tobey leaving. Without Tobey it wouldn't be a legitimate sequel. So they needed a reboot.

Burton, Keaton, and almost everybody left after B Returns. They did a sequel anyways, did they not?

Wow, you really struggle with all of this. A 20 year gap between films is definitely the end of a franchise. An 8 year gap with a complete change in tone and approach because they wanted the audience to forget the previous film is the end of a franchise. Trying to do a sequel and then scrambling to make another film to maintain the rights is, by definition, continuing the franchise.

Yeah, rebooting is, according to you, the very definition of continuing the franchise.

But as the above article, and the tons of others you can find online explain, Raimi and Tobey were hired. Contracts had beren signed, bank accounts had been increased. Sam walked. Tobey walked with him.

And they ended the franchise. Problems appeared because people wasn't exactly happy with how SM3 went.

It was definitely approved. Obviously it wasn't released. And Spidey 3 certainly had an impact considering all the heartache you've suffered over it for the past 5 years.

In fact I've had a lot of fun criticizing the film. I mean, people are right blaming Arad, but no exec forced Raimi to make Peter an emo who fingerguns ladies while dancing down the street.

I never liked Raimi's approach, even when i consider SM2 one of the best superhero movies, and SM3 was Raimi's take at its worst. So I couldn't be happier that there never was a SM4.

 

[Dragon]

Okay, let me know when it's the opening day, would ya?



More than saying it, it's what we're getting.



Oh, so production never started?

I guess that was the end of the franchise.



Had it been great, we'd have SM4.



They re-shot Lois threatening her own life to expose Clark's identity and other already made scenes.



Burton, Keaton, and almost everybody left after B Returns. They did a sequel anyways, did they not?



Yeah, rebooting is, according to you, the very definition of continuing the franchise.



And they ended the franchise. Problems appeared because people wasn't exactly happy with how SM3 went.



In fact I've had a lot of fun criticizing the film. I mean, people are right blaming Arad, but no exec forced Raimi to make Peter an emo who fingerguns ladies while dancing down the street.

I never liked Raimi's approach, even when i consider SM2 one of the best superhero movies, and SM3 was Raimi's take at its worst. So I couldn't be happier that there never was a SM4.

You're not happy. If you were, then you wouldn't spend so much time dwelling on negativity. And this is beyond comic book movies. I'm talking life, dude.

Clearly, logic, evidence mean nothing to you when you choose to live in a bubble. There's lots of folks like that unfortunately. I however am done floating in it with you.

Peace.

 

[Spuzz]

Looking back on the first post/page of this thread is hilarious.

 

[Rogue Kira]

I like the first 2 films as movies, As adaptations i think they fell a little short.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

lol'd pretty hard at this thread bump. How misleading movie trailers can be. How hopeful us fans can get.

 

[Rogue Kira]

lol'd pretty hard at this thread bump. How misleading movie trailers can be. How hopeful us fans can get.