The Amazing Spider-Man Is anyone else mad at sony?!

[Picard Sisko]

Now, I want to say that I did really enjoy The Amazing Spider-Man, despite its flaws, and gave it an 8.5/10 rating. I am happy that Sony decided to reboot the movie after Spider-Man 3, and really look forward to seeing where this franchise goes. I did NOT think it was the same movie as SM1 at all, despite what critics have been saying. This is its own movie.

I was thinking about how this movie was made just so Sony could retain the film rights to Spider-Man. I could imagine Sony executives behind the camera laughing at the audience, counting dollar bills. While I liked the new take on the origin, and the involvement of Peter's parents, it felt like they chose the origin story because it was the easiest, and laziest route to go in order to make a movie ASAP. They don't care about Spider-Man at all. They are very close to going out of business, and Spidey is all they have left. I am grateful that we had Marc Webb, because he really did his very best, and I can say the same for the cast of the film. The movie had lazy editing and an entire subplot cut out of the film, which was heavily advertised in the trailers and TV spots. The difference is that with Spider-Man 3, it seemed like Sam Raimi just stopped caring. Here, everyone tried their best (and it does show).

I am really excited for the sequel, and can't wait to see where they decide to go from here. However, something just doesn't feel right. Spider-Man is the icon of Marvel comics. Yet, Marvel Studios does not have the film rights for the character. Doesn't it feel like something is wrong here? Instead, his film rights are given to one of the worst studios in Hollywood. They made two great Spider-Man films, and I don't care what anyone says. Spider-Man 2 is my favorite comic book movie of all time, and the first movie had the biggest impact on me as a kid. Tobey Maguire was great, despite is odd personality, and I will always miss the love triangle between him, MJ, and Harry Osborn. But at the time the first movie came out, Marvel was not making movies, so it wasn't a big deal if another studio had the rights. But now Sony should have completed their Spider-Man stories, and I think its time they gave the rights back. Their time is long over.

I remember when RIM said "It feels like they took my favorite Spider-Man toy and broke it into pieces." I thought about it, and I completely understand what he meant. Or at least in my interpretation, it feels like this studio is treating Spider-Man as this cash cow that they can sell off to audiences just to make money. Yes, every movie out there is made to sell, but this feels like a bit much. Since Spider-Man 3, they have been very big with "false advertising," and showing us SEVERAL clips that never made it to the movie. I don't think we ever had a problem with Marvel Studios doing that. While I do think some of the MCU solo movies are a bit generic and not "spectacular," they are pretty faithful to the comic books and did the best they could with certain characters who aren't as popular as Spider-Man. And look at how well it turned out in the Avengers.

Now imagine what they could do with Spider-Man. I want to hear your guys thoughts on Sony, and if you think they are the wrong people to be making Spider-Man movies.

 

[Gianakin_]

Any studio that micro-manages is wrong for any movie, CB or not.

I believe every logical negative thing I've heaard about this movie, I've been sensing them since the trailers and spoilers. But I'm convinced very much they're not Webb's fault. This movie reeks studio interference. They'd better take a cue from FOX, who finally let 2 of their directors breathe in 2010 and we got 2 great movies last year (ROTPOTA and XFC).

 

[Picard Sisko]

Any studio that micro-manages is wrong for any movie, CB or not.

I believe every logical negative thing I've heaard about this movie, I've been sensing them since the trailers and spoilers. But I'm convince very much they're not Webb's fault. This movie reeks studio interference. They'd better take a cue from FOX, who finally let 2 of their directors breathe in 2010 and we got 2 great movies last year (ROTPOTA and XFC).

It wasn't Webb's fault at all. You can see he really put his heart into this film, and did the best he could. Same with the cast, including Rhys Ifans.

The big issue here is just studio interference, like you said.

 

[JerseyJoker]

Now, I want to say that I did really enjoy The Amazing Spider-Man, despite its flaws, and gave it an 8.5/10 rating. I am happy that Sony decided to reboot the movie after Spider-Man 3, and really look forward to seeing where this franchise goes. I did NOT think it was the same movie as SM1 at all, despite what critics have been saying. This is its own movie.

I was thinking about how this movie was made just so Sony could retain the film rights to Spider-Man. I could imagine Sony executives behind the camera laughing at the audience, counting dollar bills.

Stopped reading right there.

Because:

1) This is another stupid thread about Sony.
2) its ROFL to think executives sit behind the camera.
3) That you think Marc Webb had no role in editing this film.

 

[Gianakin_]

3) That you think Marc Webb had no role in editing this film.

Even so, it's nothing new or shocking that a studio might've taken control or had heavy influence over final cut. Not saying I know who cut what in TASM.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I can't link to it right now my man but there's a very good interview the producers did for latinoreview.com. Google it and read it and that'll answer some of your questions. These guys are spider man fans first and foremost so making them out to be boogey men isn't entirely fair. Everyone is assuming that they made Webb make these cuts. Well not everyone but several people but have no proof saying so.

 

[The Infernal]

I liked the film overall. I think it's flawed, but filled with great moments and great acting, but I'm not too worried yet about potential sequels. Having said that I can't discount some of your points (though I don't agree with everyone you said). Hopefully whoever directs the sequel can stand up to the studio and provide something with a bit more polish.

 

[Gianakin_]

I can't link to it right now my man but there's a very good interview the producers did for latinoreview.com. Google it and read it and that'll answer some of your questions. These guys are spider man fans first and foremost so making them out to be boogey men isn't entirely fair. Everyone is assuming that they made Webb make these cuts. Well not everyone but several people but have no proof saying so.

Do you believe them, though. Doesn't everyone say he/she's a fan of the movie he/she's producing? Or its source material?

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

And for the record I don't think studios should be TOO involved in the process and should really let their directors do what they want but I'm not foolish enough to think they all sit back and do nothing. Even marvel has stepped in when they shouldn't have ( iron man 2) and God knows who else has. But to say they just made the movie to make money is, at least to me, a tad unfair because all studios put out movies to make money that's their job and two, they recruited people who are passionate about the character and they themselves are. Whether everyone likes him or not, Avi has been with spider man for at least 20 years. Has he done stupid stuff? Of course but he's also done good stuff too.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Do you believe them, though. Doesn't everyone say he/she's a fan of the movie he/she's producing? Or its source material?

Here's the thing: what evidence do I have to go against believing them? And I'm not in the business of reading minds or telling someone what they're really thinking especially if I don't know them. I feel like that's mad condescending and who the hell am I to call someone a liar when I don't know them? Until someone shows me Avi or Matt or Marc Webb or anyone behind this movie spitting on a spider man doll or pooping on a spider man shirt, I gotta go with that. Again that's my journalism instinct kicking in. Unless I can see proof of the opposite or investigate it, I'm going with what what they say. You could be right I'm not saying you aren't. I'm just saying that trying to determine the methods and motivations of people we don't know with no proof is always a sketchy proposition

 

[Gianakin_]

Here's the thing: what evidence do I have to go against believing them? And I'm not in the business of reading minds or telling someone what they're really thinking especially if I don't know them. I feel like that's mad condescending and who the hell am I to call someone a liar when I don't know them? Until someone shows me Avi or Matt or Marc Webb or anyone behind this movie spitting on a spider man doll or pooping on a spider man shirt, I gotta go with that. Again that's my journalism instinct kicking in. Unless I can see proof of the opposite or investigate it, I'm going with what what they say. You could be right I'm not saying you aren't. I'm just saying that trying to determine the methods and motivations of people we don't know with no proof is always a sketchy proposition

I'm not talking about hatred towards the character, I'm talking about real lack of interest. My "evidence", if you will, is the many botched CBM movies, due to studio interference. Hell, SM3 is the result of that. It's more common than not, you know?

 

[Gianakin_]

And for the record I don't think studios should be TOO involved in the process and should really let their directors do what they want but I'm not foolish enough to think they all sit back and do nothing. Even marvel has stepped in when they shouldn't have ( iron man 2) and God knows who else has. But to say they just made the movie to make money is, at least to me, a tad unfair because all studios put out movies to make money that's their job and two, they recruited people who are passionate about the character and they themselves are. Whether everyone likes him or not, Avi has been with spider man for at least 20 years. Has he done stupid stuff? Of course but he's also done good stuff too.

Agreed. There needs to be a healthy co-operation between the talent and the money. Otherwise you get Ang's Hulk.

 

[Troy_Parker]

Let me break this down for everyone, there's no big studio conspiracy or anything like that.

The lines that were cut out were about Peter's parents and/or Peter's abandonment. Webb and co probably felt as though too much was being given away in movie 1, when there's still 2 more movies to go. I thought the question that the man in the shadows asked about if Connors told Peter the truth about his father made it blatantly obvious that they were going to pursue this in the sequel/s...

I guess not.

Didn't one of the posters say The Untold Story BEGINS?

 

[Gianakin_]

No conspiracy, just backtracking. Not the first time something like this would've happened.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I'm not talking about hatred towards the character, I'm talking about real lack of interest. My "evidence", if you will, is the many botched CBM movies, due to studio interference. Hell, SM3 is the result of that. It's more common than not, you know?

I think lack of interest doesn't work for guys like Arad or Feige. And I'm putting him there for iron man 2. Kevin clearly loves these chatacters and Arad does also. There is a love for the characters in the first two x men movies, the first two blade movies and all of the spider man movies. Whether we all agree that they're good is a different issue altogether. Avi is the same guy who so wasn't a fan of the Roger Corman fantastic four that he paid the distributor for the flick and burned the print of it. Even green lantern, which I think is a terrible flick, was written by and produced by guys who love the character and respect it. Warner bros has a whole DC comic film department ran by comic book guys. They dropped the ball, doesn't mean they don't respect the character. People screw up everyday. When my mom was alive I didn't always do the right thing, didn't mean I didn't love or respect her

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Let me break this down for everyone, there's no big studio conspiracy or anything like that.

The lines that were cut out were about Peter's parents and/or Peter's abandonment. Webb and co probably felt as though too much was being given away in movie 1, when there's still 2 more movies to go. I thought the question that the man in the shadows asked about if Connors told Peter the truth about his father made it blatantly obvious that they were going to pursue this in the sequel/s...

I guess not.

Didn't one of the posters say The Untold Story BEGINS?

The posters. The first trailers. All said the untold story begins. Hell even their Facebook page announced this was the first movie if a trilogy that would explain how Peter's parents disappearing shaped him as spider man

 

[Gianakin_]

I think lack of interest doesn't work for guys like Arad or Feige. And I'm putting him there for iron man 2. Kevin clearly loves these chatacters and Arad does also. There is a love for the characters in the first two x men movies, the first two blade movies and all of the spider man movies. Whether we all agree that they're good is a different issue altogether. Avi is the same guy who so wasn't a fan of the Roger Corman fantastic four that he paid the distributor for the flick and burned the print of it. Even green lantern, which I think is a terrible flick, was written by and produced by guys who love the character and respect it. Warner bros has a whole DC comic film department ran by comic book guys. They dropped the ball, doesn't mean they don't respect the character. People screw up everyday. When my mom was alive I didn't always do the right thing, didn't mean I didn't love or respect her

They're still not the artists, though. Interference, no matter how good your intentions, doesn't always bode well for the movie.

Although I still believe many producers mistake infatuation or enthusiasm for love.

 

[Troy_Parker]

The posters. The first trailers. All said the untold story begins. Hell even their Facebook page announced this was the first movie if a trilogy that would explain how Peter's parents disappearing shaped him as spider man

Yeah, exactly! Hell, the event where people saw some footage and the second trailer early was called The Untold Story Begins.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I can't link to it right now my man but there's a very good interview the producers did for latinoreview.com. Google it and read it and that'll answer some of your questions. These guys are spider man fans first and foremost so making them out to be boogey men isn't entirely fair. Everyone is assuming that they made Webb make these cuts. Well not everyone but several people but have no proof saying so.

Despite us not knowing facts, these guys are still studio execs. I mean that right there already kind of makes me think about things more. Really, I'm not gonna just read an article of what a producer says and just believe them. When it comes to a director, I can hear them and believe them, when it's a producer or exec, I'm not gonna completely believe what they're saying. Some of it may be true, to me, it doesn't ring as true. Directors come from a creative mind and want to make something whereas execs want to make money from that. Who am I more inclined to believe?

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

They're still not the artists, though. Interference, no matter how good your intentions, doesn't always bode well for the movie.

Although I still believe many producers mistake infatuation or enthusiasm for love.

Well the guys who wrote and produced green lantern are artists tho. They probably knew more about the character than Martin Campbell (director) did but they just dropped the ball

 

[Gianakin_]

Well the guys who wrote and produced green lantern are artists tho. They probably knew more about the character than Martin Campbell (director) did but they just dropped the ball

Of course. And I never said it was one-sided. I did bring up the Ang Hulk examples when I agreed with you earlier.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Despite us not knowing facts, these guys are still studio execs. I mean that right there already kind of makes me think about things more. Really, I'm not gonna just read an article of what a producer says and just believe them. When it comes to a director, I can hear them and believe them, when it's a producer or exec, I'm not gonna completely believe what they're saying. Some of it may be true, to me, it doesn't ring as true. Directors come from a creative mind and want to make something whereas execs want to make money from that. Who am I more inclined to believe?

I feel you and again I'm not saying you or my other man are wrong I just don't look at it the same way. And EVERYONE is in it to make money on some level because everyone has financial responsibilities. It's not fantasy land where directors and actors and producers do these things and don't negotiate contracts or do stuff just because they love it. Robert Downey jr loves iron man. Loves tony Stark. But he renegotiated his contract after iron man was a huge hit so that he would get a huge percentage of whatever else he did for marvel hence his huge payday for the avengers. That money was important to him and he recognized his value to marvel and capitalized off of it. That's not an altruistic motive but it's good business. Does that mean he loves the character any less? No of course not. It means he's also a good businessman. We believe him when he says he loves what he does but also have proof he wants to get paid top dollar to do it

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Of course. And I never said it was one-sided. I did bring up the Ang Hulk examples when I agreed with you earlier.

Yeah I'm with you. And you're right about hulk. They probably gave Ang Lee TOO much room to work. Which is why marvel learned their lesson afterward and are very judicious with how they make their movies. Aside from Favreau, no director has stayed with them for more than one project

 

[OP84CC82]

Now, I want to say that I did really enjoy The Amazing Spider-Man, despite its flaws, and gave it an 8.5/10 rating. I am happy that Sony decided to reboot the movie after Spider-Man 3, and really look forward to seeing where this franchise goes. I did NOT think it was the same movie as SM1 at all, despite what critics have been saying. This is its own movie.

I was thinking about how this movie was made just so Sony could retain the film rights to Spider-Man. I could imagine Sony executives behind the camera laughing at the audience, counting dollar bills. While I liked the new take on the origin, and the involvement of Peter's parents, it felt like they chose the origin story because it was the easiest, and laziest route to go in order to make a movie ASAP. They don't care about Spider-Man at all. They are very close to going out of business, and Spidey is all they have left. I am grateful that we had Marc Webb, because he really did his very best, and I can say the same for the cast of the film. The movie had lazy editing and an entire subplot cut out of the film, which was heavily advertised in the trailers and TV spots. The difference is that with Spider-Man 3, it seemed like Sam Raimi just stopped caring. Here, everyone tried their best (and it does show).

I am really excited for the sequel, and can't wait to see where they decide to go from here. However, something just doesn't feel right. Spider-Man is the icon of Marvel comics. Yet, Marvel Studios does not have the film rights for the character. Doesn't it feel like something is wrong here? Instead, his film rights are given to one of the worst studios in Hollywood. They made two great Spider-Man films, and I don't care what anyone says. Spider-Man 2 is my favorite comic book movie of all time, and the first movie had the biggest impact on me as a kid. Tobey Maguire was great, despite is odd personality, and I will always miss the love triangle between him, MJ, and Harry Osborn. But at the time the first movie came out, Marvel was not making movies, so it wasn't a big deal if another studio had the rights. But now Sony should have completed their Spider-Man stories, and I think its time they gave the rights back. Their time is long over.

I remember when RIM said "It feels like they took my favorite Spider-Man toy and broke it into pieces." I thought about it, and I completely understand what he meant. Or at least in my interpretation, it feels like this studio is treating Spider-Man as this cash cow that they can sell off to audiences just to make money. Yes, every movie out there is made to sell, but this feels like a bit much. Since Spider-Man 3, they have been very big with "false advertising," and showing us SEVERAL clips that never made it to the movie. I don't think we ever had a problem with Marvel Studios doing that. While I do think some of the MCU solo movies are a bit generic and not "spectacular," they are pretty faithful to the comic books and did the best they could with certain characters who aren't as popular as Spider-Man. And look at how well it turned out in the Avengers.

Now imagine what they could do with Spider-Man. I want to hear your guys thoughts on Sony, and if you think they are the wrong people to be making Spider-Man movies.

Reports on when Sony was planning Amazing are contradictory. Some say it was WAY before Spider-Man 4 was even cancelled and that they may even have planned on SM4 wrapping up the trilogy and releasing it in 2011 while TASM would've come out the year after in 2012. But most of what people seem to go by are more mainstream sites. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony planned this film in advance and commissioned the James Vanderbilt script prior to Sam Raimi leaving the film.

 

[OP84CC82]

Let me break this down for everyone, there's no big studio conspiracy or anything like that.

The lines that were cut out were about Peter's parents and/or Peter's abandonment. Webb and co probably felt as though too much was being given away in movie 1, when there's still 2 more movies to go. I thought the question that the man in the shadows asked about if Connors told Peter the truth about his father made it blatantly obvious that they were going to pursue this in the sequel/s...

I guess not.

Didn't one of the posters say The Untold Story BEGINS?

To be honest, I always felt as if those lines were only for the trailer and nothing else. And weren't a lot of other stuff cut too? Like Peter at the docks, him talking about his parents and uncle ben (who's supposed to be dead at this point), etc.