The Amazing Spider-Man Marc Webb to return?

[SpiderMarvelite]

To me, Webb's origin is easily different enough that calling it "riding along Raimi's film" is ignorant if you ask me.

It's supposed to follow that story to some POINT. I mean HELL that's the origin and essence, you cant CHANGE THAT. Listen, if he made Spider-Man and alien with 3 heads, people would complain like heck. So he keeps it close to the origin, people complain. They always complain.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

To me, Webb's origin is easily different enough that calling it "riding along Raimi's film" is ignorant if you ask me.

I agree.

I really don't understand why they keep referring to Raimi's SM1 whenever they watch ASM and say that it's "copying the same points."

Well, ASM is a reboot and because of that, you are going to get a retelling of the origin. What is Spidey's origin? Nerdy, young PP gets bitten by a Spider, gains powers, Uncle Ben delivers speech, Uncle Ben dies, PP becomes Spider-man....essentially. That's HIS origin. Of course with any transfer in medium and over the course of time you get different interpretations of how this story is told but the basic elements are still there. And since this film is a reboot they need to tell the origin again because they aren't going to rely on an origin movie that occurred 10 years ago as the "source" material for the audience.

There is a source material here. The comics. Raimi didn't invent the origin of Spider-man but somehow Webb is just "retelling the Raimi origin all over again." I see this comment in plenty of reviews and it is funny to me how they have to constantly compare them but what they should be doing is ignoring Raimi and reviewing the movie under its own merits because it is a REBOOT. It is drawing its ideas for the origin from the comics, NOT Raimi. The movie should be held accountable based on that measure...not someone else's interpretation of the origin.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If I was Webb, unless it was written in my contract that I could do what I wanted provided the budget was met and it gets released on time, I would bail too. This is now three films (SM3, the cancelled SM4, ASM) in which Sony execs couldn't keep their fingers out of the pie and ended up ruining it. They are the new Fox. They don't want a visionary, they want a puppet. No wonder Webb is unhappy. The way they are going no director will want to work with them other than the Brett Ratner and McG types.

 

[Oscorp]

They didn't ruin ASM though

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They didn't ruin ASM though

Yeah, they did. ASM was exceedingly mediocre.

 

[Anno_Domini]

To me, Webb's origin is easily different enough that calling it "riding along Raimi's film" is ignorant if you ask me.

Following the origin which is what Sam Raimi did is still "riding along Raimi's film". Because they didn't even have to go that route as we've been through this ten years prior. That to me, even with any alterations done, is "riding along Raimi's film". It's not like it'll be 30 years from Superman and Man of Steel.

It's supposed to follow that story to some POINT. I mean HELL that's the origin and essence, you cant CHANGE THAT. Listen, if he made Spider-Man and alien with 3 heads, people would complain like heck. So he keeps it close to the origin, people complain. They always complain.

What Webb could've done? Not do the origin at all.

 

[Tony Stark]

Can't say I'm surprised by this, but that's Hollywood for you. Hopefully the rights go back to Marvel and they can get some real creative people on this project.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Following the origin which is what Sam Raimi did is still "riding along Raimi's film". Because they didn't even have to go that route as we've been through this ten years prior. That to me, even with any alterations done, is "riding along Raimi's film". It's not like it'll be 30 years from Superman and Man of Steel.

See my post above.

 

[Anno_Domini]

See my post above.

That didn't change my stance at all, tbh. Ten years is still fresh and Webb didn't have to do the origin. It's still a director's take on if he wants to do an origin or not, look at The Incredible Hulk. A director doesn't have to as it may not be essential to the story itself, and Webb didn't have to, and shouldn't have to tell the origin again. Are we saying that the next reboot will just tell the origin again? Because, if so, please let Marvel Studio take Spidey back and perhaps do the origin once and ONLY once.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

That didn't change my stance at all, tbh. Ten years is still fresh and Webb didn't have to do the origin. It's still a director's take on if he wants to do an origin or not, look at The Incredible Hulk. A director doesn't have to as it may not be essential to the story itself, and Webb didn't have to, and shouldn't have to tell the origin again. Are we saying that the next reboot will just tell the origin again? Because, if so, please let Marvel Studio take Spidey back and perhaps do the origin once and ONLY once.

Ok, well now you're saying two different things. I can see that maybe they didn't need to tell the origin again and could have gone another route to tell the story. Maybe do flashbacks or some other technique to show things in the past. But saying that because they did do the origin story again is somehow 'riding the on the Raimi' film is somewhat ridiculous. Raimi didn't invent Spidey's origin. If you're gonna retell the origin of Spider-man, of course there will be similarities, because it's coming from the comics. That place where he originated. IMO, I enjoyed the retelling of the origin and imo it was needed. I feel that they took a very good first step in this trilogy and I truly hope Webb is able to continue.

 

[chaseter]

The untold story is still in the movie... as it will be in the rest of the trilogy.

If the writers and Webb had focused on one movie instead of a trilogy...then maybe this one would have been better.

 

[Jexx]

My favorite part of superhero stories is usually always the origin... so they can retell the origin as many times as they want imo.

 

[Mike]

Can't say I'm surprised by this, but that's Hollywood for you. Hopefully the rights go back to Marvel and they can get some real creative people on this project.

marvel studios is no better than sony. Avengers was about the best movie they made. The only reason iron man is good is because of RDJ. Erase him from that and it would of been your typical marvel film. All of the marvel films leading up to the avengers were decent. Nothing extraordinary just decent. The grass isnt always greener. Theres always going to be interference with studio heads, theyre there to make profit,sell toys, etc. Marvel is guilty of it as well.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Ok, well now you're saying two different things. I can see that maybe they didn't need to tell the origin again and could have gone another route to tell the story. Maybe do flashbacks or some other technique to show things in the past. But saying that because they did do the origin story again is somehow 'riding the on the Raimi' film is somewhat ridiculous. Raimi didn't invent Spidey's origin. If you're gonna retell the origin of Spider-man, of course there will be similarities, because it's coming from the comics. That place where he originated. IMO, I enjoyed the retelling of the origin and imo it was needed. I feel that they took a very good first step in this trilogy and I truly hope Webb is able to continue.

And no one said Sam Raimi created the origin, lol. Now that would be ignorant, but still, ten years later and we get another origin is ridiculous. Why Sony wanted to do it, or Webb, makes no sense.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

And no one said Sam Raimi created the origin, lol. Now that would be ignorant, but still, ten years later and we get another origin is ridiculous. Why Sony wanted to do it, or Webb, makes no sense.

When reviewers say that Webb is copying the Raimi film and then bashing it because of that, they're saying that Raimi invented the Spider-man wheel which is absolutely ignorant and incorrect. A review of ASM should be as a standalone film and base the points about its merits/lack of merit upon the actual origin of Spider-man and not the interpretation of said origin by another filmmaker.

IMO it is fair however, to compare Raimi and Webb and say which version you like better. They both have good points to them and they both have flaws so a comparison is a good thing and it provides for some good discussion. But that's where it should end.

Again, Anno, I see your point about not needing an origin this time around however we still got one. I truly enjoyed this origin telling and it made perfect sense to me.

 

[Arachnid]

When reviewers say that Webb is copying the Raimi film and then bashing it because of that, they're saying that Raimi invented the Spider-man wheel which is absolutely ignorant and incorrect. A review of ASM should be as a standalone film and base the points about its merits/lack of merit upon the actual origin of Spider-man and not the interpretation of said origin by another filmmaker.

IMO it is fair however, to compare Raimi and Webb and say which version you like better. They both have good points to them and they both have flaws so a comparison is a good thing and it provides for some good discussion. But that's where it should end.

Again, Anno, I see your point about not needing an origin this time around however we still got one. I truly enjoyed this origin telling and it made perfect sense to me.

Couldn't agree more. The film should be reviewed on it's own merits. The retelling was just as good as Raimi's, and in the end, I enjoyed TASM more than SM1. Webb wanted to create his own version, including the origin, and wanted to differentiate from the Raimi series, so I was completely fine with seeing it again.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Well they planned for a trilogy, so why would they do that?

It's always a bad idea to make a movie as a trilogy, especially with the first act. Movies that are considered great are supposed to stand firmly on their own and tell us a solid narrative on their own. A trilogy can be made by looking at the loose ends you can find in your first film and expanding on them.

Plus this movie really did hit the same points that Raimi's did, it almost felt like a what if universe at some points. Webb did a great job regardless, but this is my main reasoning why he should return. He made it work.

 

[American_Hobo]

I just don't like Webb's style of directing.
Villain is like most important part of Spideman movies yet he screwed up Lizard big time.

 

[LegendAssemble]

When reviewers say that Webb is copying the Raimi film and then bashing it because of that, they're saying that Raimi invented the Spider-man wheel which is absolutely ignorant and incorrect. A review of ASM should be as a standalone film and base the points about its merits/lack of merit upon the actual origin of Spider-man and not the interpretation of said origin by another filmmaker.

IMO it is fair however, to compare Raimi and Webb and say which version you like better. They both have good points to them and they both have flaws so a comparison is a good thing and it provides for some good discussion. But that's where it should end.

Again, Anno, I see your point about not needing an origin this time around however we still got one. I truly enjoyed this origin telling and it made perfect sense to me.

No it really hit the same points its just not as obvious because Raimi and Webb have very different styles. The critics weren't referring to the origin, they were referring to the story as a whole.

Peter Parker meets a scientist who will turn himself into the main villain, then has the first real conversation with the love interest, right before getting bit by the spider. He gets home and his Aunt and Uncle think he's acting odd and he runs to his room and falls asleep. Gets back at the bully and then gets lectured by Uncle Ben about why it was wrong.

The middle is fairly different, but then villain figures out Peter is Spider-Man and has a scene where his two personalities are talking to each other in his lair, before deciding to go after him personally. Then the movie ends with a funeral and a call back to Uncle Ben and Peter having to give up the girl.

The story really did hit a lot of the same points as Raimi's you just don't see it because Webb did such a good job which is why it's ludicrous he's being forced out!

 

[Mike]

I just don't like Webb's style of directing.
Villain is like most important part of Spideman movies yet he screwed up Lizard big time.

this is incorrect. The villains take the backseat in the comics and in the movies. That's how it should be. The true obstacle are the struggles he faces in everyday life along with the supervillains. And just because they're planing a trilogy doesnt mean the films wont stand on their own. Case in point the dark knight trilogy.

 

[chaseter]

Nolan didn't have a plan for TDKR when he was filming BB. That's why BB feels like a solid standalone film while this doesn't. The main plot arcs connected with the hero (parents and Ben's killer) are purposely left unresolved and the movie feels empty. Peter never faces his uncle's killer whereas Bruce did. The villain's motivations of feeling incomplete as a human are underdeveloped and skimpy. BB is a much more solid entry than ASM if you want to compare the two. SM1 is also a better film for being a complete film and not 1/3 or 1/2 of a complete movie...which ASM is.

 

[LegendAssemble]

this is incorrect. The villains take the backseat in the comics and in the movies. That's how it should be. The true obstacle are the struggles he faces in everyday life along with the supervillains. And just because they're planing a trilogy doesnt mean the films wont stand on their own. Case in point the dark knight trilogy.

No the Dark Knight trilogy, with the exception of Rises, each film holds up just fine on it's own. You really don't even need Begins to have Dark Knight, that easily could have been a stand alone film, and they weren't planning a trilogy. Nolan didn't want that unless he could think of a way to do it well. It's never wise to plan future films with the first.

Anyway the villain is easily as important as the hero. A good superhero film comes from the hero learning his lesson through the villains actions. You point the Dark Knight trilogy, specifically Begins. Scarecrow is the fear Batman had to give up and over come to become a hero. Ra's Al Ghul is what Batman could become if he broke his killing rule, if he crossed that fine line.

Look to Iron Man, Stane is the evil that Stark is trying to push away from. Someone who tries to profit of the death and suffering of others, again not that far away from what Tony was before the cave.

Spider-Man 2, Doc Ock goes through the same arc as Peter they are both trying to follow their dreams and ignoring the harm they're causing by doing so.

The Lizard wasn't even fun to watch, I loved Peter and I wanted to see him win, which is a good thing, but I would have been content to see Lizard splatter all over the pavement at the end.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Nolan didn't have a plan for TDKR when he was filming BB. That's why BB feels like a solid standalone film while this doesn't. The main plot arcs connected with the hero (parents and Ben's killer) are purposely left unresolved and the movie feels empty. Peter never faces his uncle's killer whereas Bruce did. The villain's motivations of feeling incomplete as a human are underdeveloped and skimpy. BB is a much more solid entry than ASM if you want to compare the two. SM1 is also a better film for being a complete film and not 1/3 or 1/2 of a complete movie...which ASM is.

Well heck, Nolan didn't even have a plan for TDK. Only ideas here and there as mentioned by Goyer and Nolan, but that's about it.

 

[chaseter]

Right...he focused on each movie and went on from there. He wasn't worried about what to leave open to make the next one. Neither did Raimi. The only thing directors do is leave cliff hangers at the end of movies like BB and the Joker card or Harry finding his father's secret room. If Harry had found his father's room at the beginning of SM2 and they never move it forward from that...it would suck. If Gordon gives Batman a Joker card at the beginning of BB and they never reference it again then it would suck. Who really thought that was a way to make a great movie? Webb? Arad? Sony?

 

[American_Hobo]

this is incorrect. The villains take the backseat in the comics and in the movies. That's how it should be. The true obstacle are the struggles he faces in everyday life along with the supervillains. And just because they're planing a trilogy doesnt mean the films wont stand on their own. Case in point the dark knight trilogy.

Maybe....but it doesn't change the fact that Lizard was horrible in the movie.