Sequels New Raimi Interview

[Venom 1988]

I dont really care if Spider-Man is PG-13 or R and I do see Vis's points about things being stronger in certain areas (think MK:SM and Kraven's Last Hunt stuff). Anyway I like how when some people hear "R-rated Spider-Man" they immediatly think of nudity, sex and gore. I dont believe in any of Vis's post did he say anything like that.

 

[Visionary]

The source material isn't even R-rated, I don't know why anyone would think an R-rated film would be appropriate.

Marvel still follows the Comic Code, you're not going to see things taking to the next level in those funny books. I always thought that the movies could finally be the platform in which the Comic Code isn't present, but I see that it is, in the form of a PG-13, or should I say PG, because that's what these films feel like.

 

[Visionary]

Anyway I like how when some people hear "R-rated Spider-Man" they immediatly think of nudity, sex and gore. I dont believe in any of Vis's post did he say anything like that.

And I don't, where was the gore in The Matrix, there was more nudity in Beowulf than Terminator 2, and Beowulf is PG-13. There was barely any cursing in T2, as well...or blood. T2, The Matrix, Alien is a good platform for a Spider-Man film to be made. And most people kids and adults love these three R-rated movies. You feel the intensity and threat when watching Alien, Predator or T2, that you simply don't feel when you're watching Batman or Spider-Man. I know I don't.

 

[Smit84]

As long as Sam Raimi doesn't write it.

The impression that I get is that Sam Raimi has really had a hand in writing all three films. He just had a larger hand in Spider-man 3. On the first two he really directed the writers on what he wanted in the script. For example, I know with Spider-man 2 he had the ending planned and the basics of what had to happen, as well as certain key moments. It sounded like the screenwriters' job to just connect the dots and contribute ideas Raimi would either approve or disapprove.

Raimi probably was on such a high after Spider-man 2 that he wanted to do the third from all his own ideas. He and Ivan wrote a 50-page treatment (hence the screen story credit). Since Alvin Sargent did some uncredited script doctoring on the first and wrote the final draft of the second, Raimi probably felt Sargent was the only writer they needed to use. As for their credit on the script that probably was just for the gags and the action scenes which they contributed to the scripts for the first two films as well. As most already know, the Venom saga also wasn't going to be a part of the story originally. Avi Arad guilt-tripped Raimi into using Venom. In the DVD commentary, James Franco even mentions how the story Raimi told him early on was in the finished film in "broad strokes" but a lot of details changed. Raimi explained that was due to the story having to be re-thought to include Venom.

Here it sounds like the new writer will be doing his own thing and should Raimi return as director THEN he will discuss his ideas with the writer.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Here it sounds like the new writer will be doing his own thing and should Raimi return as director THEN he will discuss his ideas with the writer.

Thats what I think as well. i really am excited to here what Vanderbilt is going to have for the script and what ideas Sam has in his head.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

^
Why don't you want Kraven?

I don't know. I just think that having Vulture or Electro would be better.

 

[Visionary]

I wouldn't mind The Lizard and Electro instead of Kraven, but no Vulture, I hate that characters.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Marvel still follows the Comic Code, you're not going to see things taking to the next level in those funny books. I always thought that the movies could finally be the platform in which the Comic Code isn't present, but I see that it is, in the form of a PG-13, or should I say PG, because that's what these films feel like.

Negative. Marvel dropped the Comics Code about seven years ago...

 

[Arcturus]

I wouldn't mind The Lizard and Electro instead of Kraven, but no Vulture, I hate that characters.

I agree 110% Vis! I think the Lizard and Electro should be in SM-4.

 

[Visionary]

Negative. Marvel dropped the Comics Code about seven years ago...

I said they still follow the Comic Code, meaning, you won't see anything differently than you've been seeing when they had it. I'd love to see the comics take it up a few notches too. Seriously, what's the use of not having the Comics Code, if you're still acting like you do? Spidey's practically walking cute little puppies.

 

[DACrowe]

Spidey isn't an R-rated character. You can do almost all his darkest stories as a hard PG-13. But Spidey is ultimately a character meant as much (if not moreso) for kids as adults. Batman he isn't.

Anyway I know Electro is much more appealing visually than Kraven. But his powers are very generic for a movie (didn't the piss poor Dr. Doom have them in the FF movies?) and him going with Lizard makes no sense. I am sick of team-ups. I want something new and they have to connect somehow. Kraven fits Lizard like a glove. Lizard can be the mai nvillain and visually rock the world, but Kraven can come to hunt Lizard and Spidey has to protect one villain from the other causing Kraven to obsess about hte only "villain" who defeated him, Spidey. Enter Kraven's Last Hunt streamlined and Peter being buried and missing his own wedding to MJ.

That would be a great story. Not "I hate the Spider--you hate the spider...let's be best buddies!" "Coo."

 

[chaseter]

^I want Lizard period polka dot. But I agree with being sick of team ups. I have wanted two villians to fight it out in SM4 for a quite a while now. I don't care if it's Kraven or Electro...I want to see two major villians throwing down with Spider-Man swinging in to make it a three-way!!! That sounded dirty...

 

[Robin91939]

I would rather a darker Spider-man film, but in PG-13. I think it could be done....without any camp in PG-13. Spier-man 3 really should have been that dark Spidey film, but missed the mark in direction completely.

Batman, however, is a character that should be R-rated, especially with villains like Joker, Scarecrow, and Two-face sharing a film.

-R

 

[Spider-Fan]

Spidey is not an R-rated character, and the violence he requires is clearly PG-13...stick with that.

As for this interview, nothing new really other than his marriage comment. Doesn't sway me either way on whether he comes back or not. I still say it is 50/50.

 

[Mr Jide]

I believe it is more than possible for a spidey film to have elements of R-ratings in it and to have the movie passed of as a pg-13. Movies do it all the time, some R-rated movies should in fact have a lower rating due to its content. Plain and simple, these spidey movies have no balls and are merely playing it safe.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Everyone stop talking about balls for five seconds. Spiderman for the majority of his career has been a kid-safe icon and the movies represent that. If you want balls, do what I do sometimes and watch some *** ****. DONT LET YOUR MOM SEE.

 

[Mr Jide]

Justin, some of us would rather get pu**y than want balls.

 

[Visionary]

Playing it safe, yeah, that's a better term. They're playing it safe a bit too damn much. Thus, is why you'll never see a truly evil, dramatic and threatening villain or a New Yorker who isn't happy-go-lucky. I like the idea of the guy who wrote Zodiac writing the 4th film, but my question is, how much is Sony going to change of his work to fit their Mr. Softy films?

Spidey isn't an R-rated character. You can do almost all his darkest stories as a hard PG-13. But Spidey is ultimately a character meant as much (if not moreso) for kids as adults. Batman he isn't.

That's where we disagree, you mean Electro can't electricute someone to death as they scream in pain, would that not be in character, he's Electro? You mean The Lizard can't kill someone with his claws or teeth (just because there will be some blood), would that be out of character, he hates humans? There are all kinds of R-rated elements in Spider-Man's comics, a writer who doesn't write with a PLAYING IT SAFE attitude, wouldn't dream of putting The Lizard or even Venom on screen without them killing a few people in a brutal way. I had no idea how soft Spider-Man fans were, you people are like tissue.

And I'm still waitng for a dark and gritty Batman having made five films already. Guess what, those geeks don't see R-rated elements in Batman either? Maybe he should be call The Light Knight.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Playing it safe, yeah, that's a better term. They're playing it safe a bit too damn much. Thus, is why you'll never see a truly evil, dramatic and threatening villain or a New Yorker who isn't happy-go-lucky. I like the idea of the guy who wrote Zodiac writing the 4th film, but my question is, how much is Sony going to change of his work to fit their Mr. Softy films?
That's where we disagree, you mean Electro can't electricute someone to death as they scream in pain, would that not be in character, he's Electro? You mean The Lizard can't kill someone with his claws or teeth (just because there be some blood), would that be out of character, he hates humans? There are all kinds of R-rated elements in Spider-Man's comics, a writer who doesn't write with a PLAYING IT SAFE attitude, wouldn't dream of putting The Lizard or even Venom on screen without them killing a few people in a brutal way. I had no idea how soft Spider-Man fans were, you people are like tissue.

And I'm still waitng for a dark and gritty Batman 5 films in. Guess what, those geeks don't see R-rated elements in Batman either? Maybe he should be call The Light Knight.

First: Lizard shouldn't even have teeth. Lizards don't have teeth, and humans don't have sharp teeth. That's one thing the original comics got right that the modern ones f***ed-up for the sake of being "badass." And Electro should be able to kill people, and SHOULD kill people. However, writhing in pain is not something I, or anyone else, needs to see or hear in a Spider-Man film. Spider-Man is not dark and gritty. That's not how the character is. I mean, I like dark and gritty as much as the next guy, but anyone who wants that for Spider-Man doesn't want the Spider-Man of the comics. Typically, Spider-Man should evoke a sense of childlike wonder and amazement. He should be able to make wisecracks (good ones, and sparingly, but wisecracks nonetheless).

Spider-Man 3 could have been dark, and should have been, but wasn't. The emo-dancing could have been replaced with black-suited Spidey stopping a bank robbery, and beating the sh** out of the robbers only to realize what he's become. That would suit the film much more. Beyond that, Spidey doesn't need to be "dark." I mean, I know it's been said to death already, but Spider-Man is not Batman. I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight because it looks to be truly dark, gritty, and scary. I would probably not look forward as much to a Spider-Man movie with those characteristics (though Kraven-Lizard could certainly lean strongly toward that side). Spider-Man is big, epic, and colorful. Which isn't to say it can't be serious... it needs to be. But the wonder is important.

 

[Advanced Dark]

First: Lizard shouldn't even have teeth. Lizards don't have teeth, and humans don't have sharp teeth. That's one thing the original comics got right that the modern ones f***ed-up for the sake of being "badass." And Electro should be able to kill people, and SHOULD kill people. However, writhing in pain is not something I, or anyone else, needs to see or hear in a Spider-Man film. Spider-Man is not dark and gritty. That's not how the character is. I mean, I like dark and gritty as much as the next guy, but anyone who wants that for Spider-Man doesn't want the Spider-Man of the comics. Typically, Spider-Man should evoke a sense of childlike wonder and amazement. He should be able to make wisecracks (good ones, and sparingly, but wisecracks nonetheless).

Spider-Man 3 could have been dark, and should have been, but wasn't. The emo-dancing could have been replaced with black-suited Spidey stopping a bank robbery, and beating the sh** out of the robbers only to realize what he's become. That would suit the film much more. Beyond that, Spidey doesn't need to be "dark." I mean, I know it's been said to death already, but Spider-Man is not Batman. I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight because it looks to be truly dark, gritty, and scary. I would probably not look forward as much to a Spider-Man movie with those characteristics (though Kraven-Lizard could certainly lean strongly toward that side). Spider-Man is big, epic, and colorful. Which isn't to say it can't be serious... it needs to be. But the wonder is important.

Uh yes most lizards do have teeth. Also he's not just a lizard he's a mutated human.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38384/lizard

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38384/lizard

 

[Spider-Fan]

Show me one comic where Electro tortures someone to death like that, cause I have never seen that. You guys just want over the top dark for the sake of making these movies appear less kid friendly and be cooler (get the "OMG! Electro totally tortured that guy, awesome" effect), when in fact, until now Spidey comics were very kid friendly.

It is not a matter of having balls or not, but a matter of keeping the spirit and tone of the character correct. Even the darker parts of Spidey's history can be done PG-13, but some of you just want R for the sake of having R. Do we need to see the head of the guy Carnage decapitated? Or the mangled body of someone the Lizard killed (though he only really did those things in Torment)? My answer is no, alluding to it and flashing away from the gruesome points is just fine.

Spider-Man is not an R character period. You can say I have no balls all you want, but I don't want to see an R rated Spider-Man movie (doesn't fit the character), and I think many would be put off by that just like me.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Show me one comic where Electro tortures someone to death like that, cause I have never seen that. You guys just want over the top dark for the sake of making these movies appear less kid friendly and be cooler (get the "OMG! Electro totally tortured that guy, awesome" effect), when in fact, until now Spidey comics were very kid friendly.

It is not a matter of having balls or not, but a matter of keeping the spirit and tone of the character correct. Even the darker parts of Spidey's history can be done PG-13, but some of you just want R for the sake of having R. Do we need to see the head of the guy Carnage decapitated? Or the mangled body of someone the Lizard killed (though he only really did those things in Torment)? My answer is no, alluding to it and flashing away from the gruesome points is just fine.

Spider-Man is not an R character period. You can say I have no balls all you want, but I don't want to see an R rated Spider-Man movie (doesn't fit the character), and I think many would be put off by that just like me.

Exactly. Well said. Of course it "could" be done but it "never" will be done. So maybe there should be a fantasy "what if" thread to discuss this.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Show me one comic where Electro tortures someone to death like that, cause I have never seen that. You guys just want over the top dark for the sake of making these movies appear less kid friendly and be cooler (get the "OMG! Electro totally tortured that guy, awesome" effect), when in fact, until now Spidey comics were very kid friendly.

It is not a matter of having balls or not, but a matter of keeping the spirit and tone of the character correct. Even the darker parts of Spidey's history can be done PG-13, but some of you just want R for the sake of having R. Do we need to see the head of the guy Carnage decapitated? Or the mangled body of someone the Lizard killed (though he only really did those things in Torment)? My answer is no, alluding to it and flashing away from the gruesome points is just fine.

Spider-Man is not an R character period. You can say I have no balls all you want, but I don't want to see an R rated Spider-Man movie (doesn't fit the character), and I think many would be put off by that just like me.

I agree 100% and very well said! Keep Spidey the way he has always been, targeted towards kids, teenagers and adults. Leave the R-rating for much more violent films and keep it away from a character that doesn't need an R-rating.

 

[GoldGoblin]

SM3 was the darkest these spidey movies are ever gonna get until they reboot the franchise and retell the symbiote/black spidey/Venom story all over again.

 

[Visionary]

Show me one comic where Electro tortures someone to death like that, cause I have never seen that. You guys just want over the top dark for the sake of making these movies appear less kid friendly and be cooler (get the "OMG! Electro totally tortured that guy, awesome" effect), when in fact, until now Spidey comics were very kid friendly.

It is not a matter of having balls or not, but a matter of keeping the spirit and tone of the character correct. Even the darker parts of Spidey's history can be done PG-13, but some of you just want R for the sake of having R. Do we need to see the head of the guy Carnage decapitated? Or the mangled body of someone the Lizard killed (though he only really did those things in Torment)? My answer is no, alluding to it and flashing away from the gruesome points is just fine.

Spider-Man is not an R character period. You can say I have no balls all you want, but I don't want to see an R rated Spider-Man movie (doesn't fit the character), and I think many would be put off by that just like me.

Geez, now you wanna match movie with comics, that ship has sailed. There's a ton that's in the film that's not in the comics. And no one will blink an eye if Electro fries someone, except soccer moms and a few light-hearted geeks from the Hype.

No one wants an R rating just for the sake of it, have you been reading what has been said? No, I want to see Electro fry someone, because he's a villain, he's bad, he's not good, and it's his goddamn power! It's getting so bad, that fanboys actually take offense to a villain killing someone in a harsh way.

Why not just have Spider-Man set up a picnic date with his villains at Jelly Stone Park--or perhaps Spidey setting up a psychiatrist stand, where a villain pays him 5 cents to have some good talked into him.

I guess you want future Spidey movies with Sam Raimi's kids yelling wicked and cool, eh?