Sequels It's been three strikes now. Why is Sony involved with this franchise?

Dasher10

I'm like Deadpool IRL
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
5,501
Reaction score
63
Points
73
Honestly, Sony needs to abandon this franchise entirely. Their last three films were all pretty bad and I don't see them getting much better if TASM3 introduces four new villains along with MJ and probably also JJ Jameson and Ed Brock as well. With that many new faces in a film that will also do the whole black costume arc, it's not going to be focused at all. Combine that with needing to find out who killed Ben Parker, Felicia hardy becoming black Cat and what exactly was going on with Peter's Parents and bio-weapons at Oscorp, it's easy to lose faith.

Moreover, Marc Webb showed a complete inability to edit TASM2. Even with things like Norman's resurrection cut and Harry's time as Green Goblin trimmed, TASM2 was still two and a half hours. What that shows is somebody with too many ideas in the editing room. That along with casting Jamie Foxx and then doing nothing cool or interesting with him, then killing him off before he had any real motive was incredibly dumb. And even with how rushed these things seemed, the movie still felt like an overlong drag.

That combined with Sony's expensive marketing which was everywhere and no merchandise to compensate just made this one really expensive mistake that cost way more than most tentpole films cost to make. Plus sequels are expected to gross more than their predecessors. When only grossing slightly more than Man of Steel did with the same budget but with no merchandise revenue, I don't get how Sony wants to go forward with an even bigger cast which means an even longer runtime and a bigger budget since actors will eat up a movie's budget like nothing else.

That and one of the spin-offs being Sinister Six. For as much as I like Superior Foes of Spider-man, I'm not sure how it'll work as a film since the comic is a pure farce which doesn't really gel with the tone that the films have and probably won't be nearly as funny.

I mean, without the merchandise, comic or TV rights, what else can Sony even do to promote the IP other than DVD sales for a film that got negative word of mouth? I certainly can't think of any other way to get cash off the property, particularly when TASM is a franchise competing with Marvel's Avengers, Fox's X-Men and Warner's Justice League but without room for tie-ins and spin-offs. The best move that Sony could make is to sell Spider-Man's live action rights back to Marvel an make a few billion easily.

Also, the sequel is still being written by Roberto Orci who's a notorious conspiracy theorist who believes that governments act just like movie villains and thus his villains are one-dimensional caricatures of what should be compelling characters. Look at that whole "Doctor Kafka" scene which was just cringeworthy where he tortures Elctro for no logical reason but he's German so he's going to do it to be EVIL!!!!! Then Electro decides that he doesn't want revenge on the NYPD for jumping the gun or Spider-Man for the "callous" sin of forgetting his name. He wants to get revenge on the entire city of New York. Then Harry decides that he doesn't want revenge on Peter, he wants vengeance on GWEN STACY! This is after he gets the cure that Peter was withholding from him which A. would have had the exact same effect if Peter gave harry his blood in the first place and B. gave Harry absolutely no motivation for seeking revenge other than, "I'M EVIL!!!"

These are villains with nothing to gain whatsoever from their plans. They have no purpose other than opposing Spider-Man for reasons that don't make any sense whatsoever. This isn't surprising coming from a man who used the term, "coincidence theorists" on his Twitter account.

It's not like Sony needs Spider-Man to be profitable. They have Jump Street, Men in Black, Robocop James Bond, The Smurfs and Underworld as bankable franchises. They can also make a film based on Uncharted, Killzone, Planetside or Infamous since they own the IP for those INDEFINITELY. In fact, they could also do a Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank or Sly Cooper animated film with their video game IP.

Point being, Sony is sitting on a potential goldmine of properties to develop, especially since they're also a video game company. So why are they holding on to the rights to Spider-Man and trying to shove an unwanted Sinister Six spin-off down our throats? Sony's gaming properties are things that Sony owns the merch rights for so an aggressive marketing strategy is actually worthwhile for those, not to mention things like shirts, toys, etc which also generate revenue. Even with games based on the Spider-Man films, those are made by Activision, which is one less reason for Sony to develop Spider-Man instead of some Playstation films.

Sony is just setting itself up for two massive flops in a row, one an overcrowded sequel, the other simply existing just to do a spin-off when Sony's track record is already pretty shaky to begin with. I mean, Fox gave us TWO bad X-Men movies and that was enough to scare them into repairing the brand. Sony on the other hand has made THREE low-quality Spider-Man films. THREE. And now there are reports of them delaying TASM3 to 2017 when they'll be competing with Thor, Justice League, The Flash, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, Fantastic Four and possibly one or two more Marvel Studios films. TASM3 would just get lost in the noise and become a punchline. We as fans are truly living in the Clone Saga of the Spider-Man film franchise. There are loose ends everywhere, it seems it will never end, the brand is damaged and apathy has completely set in. Thanks, Sony.
 
Every Spider-Man film will make more than 600M unless they get extremely negative (not merely mixed) reviews.

I'd rather Sony have Spider-Man and eventually release a good series, than having Spider-Man go back to Marvel. TASM1 was the same quality as most MCU films anyways. I just hope the next reboot will be a better and comic book faithful series.
 
Every Spider-Man film will make more than 600M unless they get extremely negative (not merely mixed) reviews.

There's your answer.

They'll continue to produce these poor adaptations of the character so long as people willfully throw their money at mediocrity.

I'm starting to think that they got lucky with someone like Raimi, but they saw dollar signs and squandered that as well.
 
"Amazing Spider-Man" was a good movie not a great one. "Amazing Spider-Man 2" had its flaws and then some but I felt it was judged a little unfairly (same as "Man of Steel") but I blame most of the problems with this franchise on the producers and the editing is terrible. When you have all these scenes that should've been in the films (from "SM3" to "ASM2") and they're completely omitted, the story feels like a incomplete puzzle and the quality is downgraded.
 
Last edited:
ASM1 was decent, I don't consider it a strike like SM3 and ASM2.

Sony fumbled the ball recently by trying to copy the cheesiness of the Raimi movies.

I think a dark and grounded trilogy could've worked if Sony stuck to their guns.

Personally, the only franchise I want back with Marvel is Fantastic Four. Outside of that, Marvel Studios has it's hands full digging into their catalogue and making unknown superheroes household names.

If they got Spider-man would they even attempt to do GotG or Ant-Man or would they kill smaller projects to focus on a Spider-man cash cow?
 
Every Spider-Man film will make more than 600M unless they get extremely negative (not merely mixed) reviews.

If the current trend of continuous decline holds it is a highly questionable assessment. I don't think there is a lot of people out there who could have imagined 6 months ago that a Spider-Man film would barely make it to 700M WW.
 
Personally, the only franchise I want back with Marvel is Fantastic Four. Outside of that, Marvel Studios has it's hands full digging into their catalogue and making unknown superheroes household names.

If they got Spider-man would they even attempt to do GotG or Ant-Man or would they kill smaller projects to focus on a Spider-man cash cow?

I don't think that would be the case. They'd see the writing on the wall and give the character a break. Marvel aren't Sony, they have a vision of where they want to go and won't waver.

Plus they would make a good film.
 
I know this would be controversial but would Spidey really be better in the hands of Marvel? Considering how Marvel has been treating Spider-man for the past couple of years in his comics I'm not to eager for them to buy the rights. Horrible story arcs like Superior, canceling Spectacular despite buying the rights and being able to continue it, replacing it with an average cartoon that's more of a disguised commercial for Marvel's comics and movies.
Thank god Superior is over at least because that was just pure garbage. I know lots of you guys like the story but that's what I personally think of it, so don't think I'm saying you guys are wrong and I'm right. :cwink:
Also, not defending Sony here. I do like the ASM movies but they could have been a hell of a lot better in the story department. The casting is excellent imo but with poor writing even the best actor can't save a movie. I just don't trust Marvel enough to deliver a good SM movie.
 
Well that's your opinion. Honestly, I think Sony hit a grandslam with TASM, and a double with TASM 2.
 
TASM was in no way a strike, far from it

Meh, I felt that it was too dark tonally. Spider-Man isn't a dark character like Batman or Wolverine. TSM2 was too cartoonish on the other hand and as a result, the character's motivations except for May Parker's made little sense and Spider-Slayer and Black Cat were thrown in without doing anything interesting. Peter was more likable in TASM2 in contrast to the complete jerk he was in TASM.

Also, Doctor Ashley Kafta is both female and American. Sony really dropped the ball on that one.
 
I'll give Sony one more chance. I think they really know how badly this movie was received by critics and fans. If they go about this next movie with multiple villains and start introducing a crap load of people, then you can count me out. It's time to go back to the one villain formula that's worked very well for 3 of their films.
 
I really like The Amazing Spiderman Series so far, definitely prefer it to the corny Raimi trilogy already. Though I was right about Jamie Foxx, predicted he would be awful because he's a extremely overrated actor and I was right, he was awful. Plus I never cared about Electro to begin with. Take him out of the movie and focus more of Chris Cooper and Dane Dehaan and this movie could have been much better. I still enjoyed it quite a bit despite the flaws (or really, the flaw that is Jamie Foxx). The Amazing Spiderman 1 is still by far my favorite Spiderman film ever.

Andrew Garfield is excellent, Emma Stone was as well. They just need to do a better job selecting the villain actors and developing the villains so it can get back on the track it was after ASM1. From day 1 of hearing it would be Electro/Jamie Foxx I knew this would be a throw-away/filler movie to some extent, because there are plenty of much more interesting Spiderman rouges that should have appeared before him.

I heard that Chris Cooper is supposed to be back for ASM3, I hope he becomes the main Green Goblin and plays a large role for the villain scenes in ASM3, he's a great actor and deserved far more screen time. That alone will help AS3 immensely IMO. I also hope the highly overrated Shaliene Woodley stays out and they cast someone better for Mary Jane. The Sinister 6 has alot of potential so long as they do well in the casting department. ASM2 was a filler movie from the jump, I like the turn in direction into the Sin6, Chris Cooper potential and hopefully a complete cleansing of the disaster that was Topher Grace as Venom with a better version of Venom (with a competent actor instead of a joke like Grace).

Personally I think this reboot is getting alot of unfair criticism and I've enjoyed it. But to each their own. I couldn't give less of a ____ about Box Office numbers, as long as I enjoy the movies and they don't tank enough to prevent sequels, the BO or general audiences opinion has never meant anything to me. Generally speaking the GA has terrible taste IMO anyway.
 
"Amazing Spider-Man" was a good movie not a great one. "Amazing Spider-Man 2" had its flaws and then some but I felt it was judged a little unfairly (same as "Man of Steel") but I blame most of the problems with this franchise on the producers and the editing is terrible. When you have all these scenes that should've been in the films (from "SM3" to "ASM2") and they're completely omitted, the story feels like a incomplete puzzle and the quality is downgraded.

The only one considered bad is 3.

:up:

It's one strike
 
To be honest, Spider-Man 3 was less of a strike than The Amazing Spider-Man 2, since in least i still saw bits of Sam Raimi's personality, the only good thing in the new film was the romance. I would let SONY have the franchise for a while, Marvel Studios has enough properties to explore already.
 
I don't think TASM was a strike at all.

I think TASM2 has divided fans more than SM3, it's the only rotten film, the lowest grossing film, Lord is certainly correct in saying it's a bigger strike.
 
I think that once they are done with this franchise they should hand over the rights to Marvel, most definitely. But I'd like to see it out and where it goes, yes, still under Sony's control.
 
I really like The Amazing Spiderman Series so far, definitely prefer it to the corny Raimi trilogy already.

I quit reading after that...so you pretty much failed with your first sentence. TASM2 not corny. LOLllllllllllllllllllllllll
 
Raimi's series were Corny but they worked realy well thanks to that, it was on purposed and clearly inspired by the Donner Superman films. When you play your film universe straight, but then put in a giant lizard, a super intelligent Gwen & Peter along with many other weirder leaps in reality, it doesn't mesh as well, in least not in the way they handled it, then in the sequel they went for a completely different look and tone, changing this is not always bad, Batman and James Bond usualy give entries that are completely different from what came before, but once again they failed didn't do that change very well and ended up with The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
 
It's one strike
TASM was in no way a strike, far from it
I don't think TASM was a strike at all.
Not trying to hate (heck, I liked ASM2), but It definitely split audiences. It dropped the audience just as much as Spider-Man 3, if not more. ASM2 box office is proof of that, that decline was felt from a reaction to the previous film as with most series. Not good. This is indeed a downfall for what use to be franchise king. All three past Spidey films are responsible.

Just cause you liked the film doesn't mean this moved the franchise in the right direction for greater success with audiences. It's now clear that it didn't, and in a tough position for growth by the next one.
 
Last edited:
In Hollywood, a strike is when a movie bombs financially. Spider-Man 3 made a ton of money in its time, more than the first two movies which were actually liked by critics. It's going to take more for them to lose the film rights to Spider-Man than some internet fanboys complaining about Peter Parker turning emo.
 
TASM: very good, TASM2: fantastic, don't care what anyone else says.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"