The Amazing Spider-Man Michael Papajohn Returning for Spider-Man 4?

[The Joker]

So, to put this into perspective, Raimi will destroy another Spidey film like he did with three and two.

You're wrong about Spider-Man 2. That is hailed as one of the greatest superhero flicks of all time.

So if that's your definition of destroying a Spidey movie, then I hope Raimi totally obliterates Spider-Man 4 in the same way

 

[HughJackFan420]

I've been saying, he could tie himself & Flint to a future villain(like Kingpin), leading to a possible Sinister Six in Spidey 6.

yeah it would be a great idea and maybe we can get a Daredevil reboot to open up a tie in for Daredevil in a future Spidey flick. but this time no Ben A$$leck. make Daredevil more bad@$$ darker even.

 

[Octoberist]

Because Sam Raimi will focus on comedy, that's not funny, and his kids.

He will make Mysterio into a villain that knows Spidey's identity, and Mysterio will most likely die(I vote for shards of his stupid fishbowl impaling his eyes!!!)

And a couple of dance scenes.

So, to put this into perspective, Raimi will destroy another Spidey film like he did with three and two.

t:

It's amazing at the amount of infomation that was leaked out post-Spider-Man 3 and Raimi's involvement, and yet people will make compulsive claims like this.

 

[webhead731]

I highly doubt Carradine is alive. It'd be kind of...dumb. I say it's either a flashback/dream, or Chameleon.

The only possible good idea I can get out of him being alive is if Spidey finds out he's alive but he's damaged and pretty much 100% paralyzed for life. And we could have a scene with him being a real ass to Spidey.

But that's not necessary. Just the only positive I can think of if he is alive.

 

[Batman137]

You're wrong about Spider-Man 2. That is hailed as one of the greatest superhero flicks of all time.

So if that's your definition of destroying a Spidey movie, then I hope Raimi totally obliterates Spider-Man 4 in the same way

i really don't know why people like sm2 that much. it was alright. but i thought it had the worst effects of the three movies.

 

[bullets]

I didn't think so . Looking back now it's easier to tell but I loved how they handled Doc Ock

 

[The Joker]

i really don't know why people like sm2 that much. it was alright. but i thought it had the worst effects of the three movies.

Hahahahahaha, yeah that's why it won the Academy Award for them t:

 

[Batman137]

i seriously thought SM3's and SM1 was way better than 2. whenever they would show full body of doc ock it looked so fake and not like alfred molina. I dont get it!?!?!?!!

 

[The Joker]

i seriously thought SM3's and SM1 was way better than 2.

I can't imagine why. Especially with part three's CGI.

whenever they would show full body of doc ock it looked so fake and not like alfred molina. I dont get it!?!?!?!!

If this looks fake to you, then you need glasses, mate:

And the most flawless CGI of all:

Amazing.

There's only maybe two instances where I thought the CGI on Doc Ock looked iffy. That's when he picked up the train passengers and threw them at Spidey, and that shot of him as we see him under the reactor just as he pulls it down into the water.

 

[Spiderine]

Black Cat will be revealed as the Burglar's daughter.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

If this looks fake to you, then you need glasses, mate:

And the most flawless CGI of all:

Amazing.

I second that.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Black Cat will be revealed as the Burglar's daughter.

LOL.... yeah, he must have concieved her at 5 years old. Young player.

 

[Milu]

Man, that scene with Doc Ock sinking is just so life-like it's unreal .

 

[Mastodon123]

Can you say Clone Saga?

 

[thejon93]

Can you say Clone Saga?

"Clone Sega. Cologne Saga."

Nope. Not really.

 

[webhead731]

All three movies have had shots that look extremely iffy, but I can't decide what effects I like better, 2 or 3. 2 had really good Ock shots, and some really good Spider-Man ones. However, 3 had Sandman who was constantly flowing and moving, Venom looking really good, and the scene with Symbiote Spidey on the side of the building which was damn near perfect. There were alot of effects and I believed 95% of them I'd say.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

There was a shot in SM3 where Spider-Man was swinging with MJ at the final battle that didn't look good. All of the films are well done with the CGI. Some of the shots are a bit iffy, though.

 

[American_Hobo]

Talking about CGI, the first SM1 really had no flaw.
I cant really think of any scene that looked fake/bad.
However, few scenes in SM2 and SM3 looked bad...(The scene where Doc Ock kidnapps MJ)

 

[The Joker]

Talking about CGI, the first SM1 really had no flaw.
I cant really think of any scene that looked fake/bad.

Hahaha what? Peter jumping over the rooftops, Peter going after the burglar in his wrestling costume along the walls/rooftops etc.

Awful.

SM-2's CGI was the best. Hands down. A well deserved Academy Award there.

 

[chaseter]

Talking about CGI, the first SM1 really had no flaw.
I cant really think of any scene that looked fake/bad.
However, few scenes in SM2 and SM3 looked bad...(The scene where Doc Ock kidnapps MJ)

When Goblin hops onto his glider at the parade after the he beats down the cops and goes after Spider-Man. The dust blowing up and the way he looks was terrible. The only bad shot in SM2 was when Ock grabs MJ as someone said. I don't see why they didn't do that practically.

 

[American_Hobo]

Ouch...you guys are so right.
I totally fotgot about those scenes.
Has been so long since I saw those movies, so I didnt remember so well.LOL...

 

[Infinity9999x]

You're wrong about Spider-Man 2. That is hailed as one of the greatest superhero flicks of all time.

So if that's your definition of destroying a Spidey movie, then I hope Raimi totally obliterates Spider-Man 4 in the same way

I think it's a bit extreme to say that Raimi destroyed any SM movie, but I can sympathize with him on SM2.

I can understand why SM2 is hailed as one of the best Superhero movies out there, because when I look at it as simply a movie, it is one of the best. However, the one thing that bothers me is that three basic things.
*Mishandling the character of Spider-man
*Completely mishandling the character of MJ
*Basically ignoring the Spidey universes' supporting cast.

It's hard for me to not be irked by SM2 simply because of how Raimi simply doesn't seem to understand the major characters in the mythos. When I watch SSpidey, I see so many more things done right in that show that I wish Raimi could have gotten. Now, yes, I realize that there are some things Raimi simply can't do that SS can because they both work in different media formats, but I'm talking more about the basic handling of their main characters, and staying true to the characterizations of each of those characters, something Raimi hasn't done that well.

I think Raimi can make good movies, but I just don't think he makes the best Spider-man movies.

 

[Tony Stark]

The first movie had some issues, but keep in mind the kind of effects they used, had never been done before.

The second film is nearly flawless in the FX department. The train fight sequence remains my favorite Superhero fight scene of any superhero movie, and it's so good it leaves practacally all others in the dust, action wise.

The third movie was fine with the FX, although I enjoyed 2 much better. Sandman was a great villian, and the effects for him make that movie enjoyable.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the visual effects were okay in all three movies. Sometimes, there were parts that were questionable.

For example, the helicopthers at the end of Spider-Man 2 was bad. Why even have them in the first place?

 

[Spider-Fan]

All 3 movies have iffy shots, as pointed out. However, the films effects as a whole are good. Better than a lot of movies that come out now. While we have some bad shots in them, the films have far more great shots that make up for it. Better than a lot of cookie cutter, video game looking films that come out (like Star Wars Episode III).