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

[LegendaryCaleb]

Sony is a terribly run company....but honestly I understand their are minor flaws in the movie...but I enjoyed it so much and dont understand all this hate towards the film...I for one am excited that I got to see the Spider-Man I'd been waiting years to witness on the big screen...and I thought it was handled great.

 

[OP84CC82]

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?

Avi Arad is (or was, I'm not sure if he left) the CEO of Marvel Studios and is responsible for them making a pact with Merill Lynch in order to self-produce films. Matt Tolmach was the former co-head of Colombia and oversaw production of the Raimi films. The late Laura Zizkin produced the first three films as well as many other great pictures. I don't see how any of them had the mind set of "We're making this just so Marvel doesn't get the rights back." That may have been Sony's worry and I could understand it. No matter what any fan says, from the eyes of a businessman/woman when the owner of the character you're making movies out of decides to produce their own pictures, you're on a ticking time clock so you can keep this cash cow going. And while some say it was a poor idea to hire Marc Webb for Spider-Man, I say it's a good one. I'm tired of big-name directors always getting the gig for superhero films and I think Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau proved that even a smaller director could turn in a great film.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Avi Arad is (or was, I'm not sure if he left) the CEO of Marvel Studios and is responsible for them making a pact with Merill Lynch in order to self-produce films. Matt Tolmach was the former co-head of Colombia and oversaw production of the Raimi films. The late Laura Zizkin produced the first three films as well as many other great pictures. I don't see how any of them had the mind set of "We're making this just so Marvel doesn't get the rights back." That may have been Sony's worry and I could understand it. No matter what any fan says, from the eyes of a businessman/woman when the owner of the character you're making movies out of decides to produce their own pictures, you're on a ticking time clock so you can keep this cash cow going. And while some say it was a poor idea to hire Marc Webb for Spider-Man, I say it's a good one. I'm tired of big-name directors always getting the gig for superhero films and I think Chris Nolan and Jon Favreau proved that even a smaller director could turn in a great film.

He's not anymore, that's Kevin Feige's job now but again he's been in charge of a lot of Marvel characters for decades but mostly spidey..every animated series except ultimate, which is all Marvel. Like I said, he's made some bad moves and missteps but he's made good moves too. Gotta take the good with the bad

 

[El Payaso]

This take is already much better than what I've seen before. It might not be the best it could be, I could agree. But far from being in the 'wrong hands.'

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

This take is already much better than Raimi's, so no.

uh oh he went there lol

 

[socool]

Sony is a terribly run company....but honestly I understand their are minor flaws in the movie...but I enjoyed it so much and dont understand all this hate towards the film...I for one am excited that I got to see the Spider-Man I'd been waiting years to witness on the big screen...and I thought it was handled great.

This is literally how I feel. Upon my second viewing, I saw more of the complaints people brought up and I understand the negativity...yet, I don't find myself enjoying the film any less. It's just MY version of Spider-Man. I personally like change (when it comes to trivial things, like film) so I have no problem with a changed origin. As long as it properly develops the characters, I'm all for a changed origin, and that's exactly what The Amazing Spider-Man did.

Oh, and it was so much better the 2nd time.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

This is literally how I feel. Upon my second viewing, I saw more of the complaints people brought up and I understand the negativity...yet, I don't find myself enjoying the film any less. It's just MY version of Spider-Man. I personally like change (when it comes to trivial things, like film) so I have no problem with a changed origin. As long as it properly develops the characters, I'm all for a changed origin, and that's exactly what The Amazing Spider-Man did.

Oh, and it was so much better the 2nd time.

First time I saw it in IMAX 3D extremely high
so Its hard to top it...but then I saw it a second time after collecting myself and seeing other peoples opinions...and although as you said I noticed more flaws...the film was extremely better the second time around...Its a movie I feel I wont get sick of...Its the best spidey out there

 

[The Joker]

Since I thoroughly enjoyed TASM, I have no worries about the the people handling it. I just hope there's no repetition of studio interference like with Spider-Man 3, and the almost made Spider-Man 4.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I'm just a bit worried about the sequel to TASM. Sony has a very big issue of studio interference, and they have done it for two movies in a row.

Look at sony overall, and what they have to offer other than Spider-Man:

Ghost Rider
Happy Madision Productions (Adam Sandler Movies)
Men In Black
Stuart Little
Ghostbusters
Underworld
The Karate Kid

Its also funny how they are releasing the Total Recall remake, and the RoboCop remake two years in a row. They are desperate for cash.

Has anyone else noticed their movies have a lot of script issues? Look at Men in Black 3 for example. I really enjoyed it, but the script was a little messy, and had some plot holes. It was made just so the company can get some profit out of a franchise that was pretty much considered dead.

 

[psylockolussus]

The pacing of this movie was definitely poor and I blame the editors for that.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I'm just a bit worried about the sequel to TASM. Sony has a very big issue of studio interference, and they have done it for two movies in a row.

Look at sony overall, and what they have to offer other than Spider-Man:

Ghost Rider
Happy Madision Productions (Adam Sandler Movies)
Men In Black
Stuart Little
Ghostbusters
Underworld
The Karate Kid

Its also funny how they are releasing the Total Recall remake, and the RoboCop remake two years in a row. They are desperate for cash.

Has anyone else noticed their movies have a lot of script issues? Look at Men in Black 3 for example. I really enjoyed it, but the script was a little messy, and had some plot holes. It was made just so the company can get some profit out of a franchise that was pretty much considered dead.

I liked Men in Black but to see the other side of it, they aren't the first studio to make a movie with a bad script. As a Bond fan, I've seen plenty of those come out with bad scripts. The script wasn't finished when they went in for men in black 3 and that's not the first movie to do that. Scripts change when you shoot movies anyway, it happened on the first batman flick and it happened on Jaws. I'm sure it's been more but those are the first two that come to mind. As far as movies go, don't forget about their animated flicks too..specifically Cloudy with a chance of meatballs (loved it) and the smurfs (not for me lol) EVERY film studio wants franchises though, that's a business model they all follow. Why do you think Warners is going to be in a hurry to reboot batman? Harry Potter is gone and ain't coming back, batman is their cash cow right now. Hell, why do you think they split up the last harry potter flick into two movies? To extend the life of the franchise and make more money from two movies than one. It's business my man. 21 jump street was also their flick and that did pretty well and was hilarious. Not sticking up for them as a studio but to act like they're the only studio in hollywood that does what they do is a tad naive to me

 

[AnneFan]

I thought the movie was quite good and had enough going for it to pass the test. Though I can definitely see a sequel being even better, now that they have established their own continuity and groundwork. And they got the casting right. So to address the topic, no, I don't think the series is in the wrong hands.

 

[DigificWriter]

The search for Ben's killer absolutely needed to be resolved. Peter isn't just getting revenge for Uncle Ben's murder- he's doing what he's supposed to do- which is bringing a dangerous menace to justice, to prevent him from taking another life. Back in Amazing Fantasy #15, Spidey doesn't go for revenge- he doesn't kill the guy, only knocks him unconscious. And even in Raimi's film Peter doesn't kill him. The guy stumbles and falls accidentally to his death. So Webb wasn't saying anything new here, but he was leaving something important left unsaid.

You're really making a bigger deal out of this whole thing than it actually is or that it needed to be. What would Peter having found the guy have contributed to the lesson he needed to learn and that he did clearly learn through his argument with Captain Stacy and the bridge crisis? The comics and the Raimi trilogy may have made the guy who shot Uncle Ben into a fairly important tertiary character, but this film didn't need to.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The thing is that I just feel that whatever Sony does with Spider-Man, it could always be better with Marvel Studios. I feel that the MCU will always have a missing piece of their puzzle until Spider-Man is a part of it. We would probably get a definitive Spider-Man movie if the rights were reverted.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I thought the movie was quite good and had enough going for it to pass the test. Though I can definitely see a sequel being even better, now that they have established their own continuity and groundwork. And they got the casting right. So to address the topic, no, I don't think the series is in the wrong hands.

Also this

 

[psylockolussus]

I'm just a bit worried about the sequel to TASM. Sony has a very big issue of studio interference, and they have done it for two movies in a row.

Look at sony overall, and what they have to offer other than Spider-Man:

Ghost Rider
Happy Madision Productions (Adam Sandler Movies)
Men In Black
Stuart Little
Ghostbusters
Underworld
The Karate Kid

Don't forget Terminator, Resident Evil and Hancock and they still might do a Charlie's Angels movie.

But looking at that list made me sad for the studio.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

The thing is that I just feel that whatever Sony does with Spider-Man, it could always be better with Marvel Studios. I feel that the MCU will always have a missing piece of their puzzle until Spider-Man is a part of it. We would probably get a definitive Spider-Man movie if the rights were reverted.

But, some people feel like they have their definitive spider-man flick already either with this movie or one of the previous 3. "Definitive" is a subjective term. Who's to say a spider-man flick from Marvel studios wouldn't be another commercial for the avengers 3 or 4 or whatever? It could be great it could be average or it could be piss poor but it's not like Marvel has absolutely nothing to do with amazing spider-man..Feige was an EP and said that he was integral with picking Andrew to play Peter and parts of the story. Avi worked at Marvel for years and years and years.

 

[DigificWriter]

The thing is that I just feel that whatever Sony does with Spider-Man, it could always be better with Marvel Studios. I feel that the MCU will always have a missing piece of their puzzle until Spider-Man is a part of it. We would probably get a definitive Spider-Man movie if the rights were reverted.

Saying that is not only unfair, it's also fairly ridiculous.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Don't forget Terminator, Resident Evil and Hancock and they still might do a Charlie's Angels movie.

But looking at that list made me sad for the studio.

They did have Terminator 2 I believe. The first film was Orion, and I think the third one was WB.

Resident Evil is such a bad movie series, and they are really milking it for all its worth. Charlie's Angels... I guess the first one was okay?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Saying that is not only unfair, it's also fairly ridiculous.

Well which part to you is ridiculous? That Spider-Man would be better with Marvel Studios, or that he is a piecing puzzle piece in the MCU?

 

[DigificWriter]

Well which part to you is ridiculous? That Spider-Man would be better with Marvel Studios?

Yes.

BTW, it's not ridiculous 'to me'; it's just ridiculous.... Period.

The reason it's ridiculous because we as an audience have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Yes.

BTW, it's not ridiculous 'to me'; it's just ridiculous.... Period.

The reason it's ridiculous because we as an audience have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

No, that is still your opinion in the end. There may be no "proof" that Spider-Man would be better off at Marvel Studios, but it only seems logical that the comic book company that he belongs to should have the movie rights to their own character.

 

[OP84CC82]

He's not anymore, that's Kevin Feige's job now but again he's been in charge of a lot of Marvel characters for decades but mostly spidey..every animated series except ultimate, which is all Marvel. Like I said, he's made some bad moves and missteps but he's made good moves too. Gotta take the good with the bad

Kevin Fiege is the President of Production, not the CEO.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Kevin Fiege is the President of Production, not the CEO.

Disney's CEO is there CEO now

 

[OP84CC82]

They did have Terminator 2 I believe. The first film was Orion, and I think the third one was WB.

Resident Evil is such a bad movie series, and they are really milking it for all its worth. Charlie's Angels... I guess the first one was okay?

WB handled domestic distribution for T3 and T4 (Salvation) while Colombia handled international for both.