Sequels New Raimi Interview

[Visionary]

Yeah, turning blood into saliva, I guess people bleed spit in Spidey's world now. Did you all not see the way they handled their PG-13 film in the lastest BOURNE movie. There should be no reason why we shouldn't be at that point with Spider-Man. I wouldn't even bring up the damn R-rating if we were at that level. Spidey has trailed so far behind, that it looks like a PG film, in some scenes, it looks flat out G-rated, I'm damn serious. Like the scene where Peter was in 'COLLEGE' no doubt, and that dude was using a mirror to shine light in his face. WTF was that, that was the kind of stuff you'd see in Hannah Montana? Talk about taking you out of the movie. Now imagine a scene like that in the BOURNE film.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Yeah, turning blood into saliva, I guess people bleed spit in Spidey's world now. Did you all not see the way they handled their PG-13 film in the lastest BOURNE movie. There should be no reason why we shouldn't be at that point with Spider-Man. I wouldn't even bring up the damn R-rating if we were at that level. Spidey has trailed so far behind, that it looks like a PG film, in some scenes, it looks flat out G-rated, I'm damn serious. Like the scene where Peter was in 'COLLEGE' no doubt, and that dude was using a mirror to shine light in his face. WTF was that, that was the kind of stuff you'd see in Hannah Montana? Talk about taking you out of the movie. Now imagine a scene like that in the BOURNE film.

That actually was a really stupid scene. But SONY took the blood out, not Raim-Dawg.

 

[Mr Jide]

Outside of ASM #150 show me on issue where he "has these urges." There are metaphors for it with BC and hints like her making breakfast for him, but you never actually see in the comics any semblance of "sexy" until after he is married when it is okay, then.

I'm not talking about sexual urges as in, he's sexually frustrated and wants to unload in a girl's cooch. I'm saying he liked girls and often pursued them as opposed to being locked down and closing in on just one girl his entire life. He liked girls and when they shunned him, he wanted to make them jealous or get even. These sorts of urges in wanting a girl date back to the very first spider-man issues.

 

[Mr Jide]

P.S. Now I think the tone can be pushed much darker and more serious but the action is pretty big in all three movies and the Doc Ock fights and Harry fights in SM3 had a brutality to them. Even if you disagree there, the climax of SM1 did push some PG-13 limitations in how much you saw a guy getting the **** kicked out of him including deleted shots of him spitting blood (turned to saliva due to studio demands) and him coughing blood after his hand was smashed into the ground (due to MPAA demands).

I'm pretty sure that ass whopping Spidey took was more violent than anything seen in a T&J cartoon.

When was the last time you saw Tom and Jerry? Nothing in these spidey flicks compares to the viloence found in these kids cartoons. As for the fights in the spidey movies, they're too tame. Aren't the bourne movies pg-13, hell wasn't die hard 4 a pg-13 and they had some pretty extreme stuff. The Bourne fights trounce every fight in the spidey movies and in die hard 4, McClane shoots himself to kill a bad guy.....in a pg-13 and you're telling me about the studio turning blood into saliva?? Come on now. This is spider-man going up against other superhumans, physical contact is going to be harder and stronger than that of a normal fight between ordinary people. Hold on isn't Bond pg-13 too? Why yes it is and that film had plenty of blood and frequent violent scenes.Violent scenes that make the viloence in sm3 look like sesame street.

 

[UltimateJustin]

When was the last time you saw Tom and Jerry? Nothing in these spidey flicks compares to the viloence found in these kids cartoons. As for the fights in the spidey movies, they're too tame. Aren't the bourne movies pg-13, hell wasn't die hard 4 a pg-13 and they had some pretty extreme stuff. The Bourne fights trounce every fight in the spidey movies and in die hard 4, McClane shoots himself to kill a bad guy.....in a pg-13 and you're telling me about the studio turning blood into saliva?? Come on now. This is spider-man going up against other superhumans, physical contact is going to be harder and stronger than that of a normal fight between ordinary people. Hold on isn't Bond pg-13 too? Why yes it is and that film had plenty of blood and frequent violent scenes.Violent scenes that make the viloence in sm3 look like sesame street.

Not really arguing here, but Tom and Jerry was of course the victim of alot of protest to cartoon violence. You might recall the Simpsons episode where Marge protests Itchy and Scratchy.

When was the last time you watch Tom and Jerry? All the gay overtones are gone and their nanny cant even be black anymore, not to mention the violence has been toned down since the 60's weird German toons.

 

[Visionary]

Actually, Cartoon Network still airs Tom and Jerry old episodes as is, classic stuff. Unfortunately, they (Warner Bros. Animation) made a new Tom & Jerry Cartoon and it sucks ass, both Hanna and Barbera are probably rolling in their graves.

When was the last time you saw Tom and Jerry? Nothing in these spidey flicks compares to the viloence found in these kids cartoons. As for the fights in the spidey movies, they're too tame. Aren't the bourne movies pg-13, hell wasn't die hard 4 a pg-13 and they had some pretty extreme stuff. The Bourne fights trounce every fight in the spidey movies and in die hard 4, McClane shoots himself to kill a bad guy.....in a pg-13 and you're telling me about the studio turning blood into saliva?? Come on now. This is spider-man going up against other superhumans, physical contact is going to be harder and stronger than that of a normal fight between ordinary people. Hold on isn't Bond pg-13 too? Why yes it is and that film had plenty of blood and frequent violent scenes.Violent scenes that make the viloence in sm3 look like sesame street.

That's what I don't understand. They're not even utilizing their PG-13 rating in Spider-Man. It's like a weaker PG-13 complete with candy, apples and gum.

That actually was a really stupid scene. But SONY took the blood out, not Raim-Dawg.

Does it really matter, Sony is doing SM4-SM6, what else are they going to kiddy up?

 

[Mr Jide]

Not really arguing here, but Tom and Jerry was of course the victim of alot of protest to cartoon violence. You might recall the Simpsons episode where Marge protests Itchy and Scratchy.

When was the last time you watch Tom and Jerry? All the gay overtones are gone and their nanny cant even be black anymore, not to mention the violence has been toned down since the 60's weird German toons.

The ones I catch my brother watching almost every day, are still pretty damn viloent. Regardless of protests, it's still being aired and still as violent as ever, which is essentially what I'm mainly talking about. The brutal violence that reaches the minds of kids all over the world for over half a century.

 

[Mr Jide]

That's what I don't understand. They're not even utilizing their PG-13 rating in Spider-Man. It's like a weaker PG-13 complete with candy, apples and gum.

I don't understand it either. Seriously, I was watching casino royale yesterday and it dawned on me that, Bond is going around shooting people in the face, in cold blood and is beating the hell out of some guy and drowning him in a dodgy toilet, with plenty of blood and not to mention Bond getting his balls whacked....all in a pg-13??? and spider-man gives us what, exactly? Seriously, I don't know how anyone can defend this absurdity.

 

[Advanced Dark]

You guys don't understand? Sony can give you 890 million reasons to understand. The box office potential is TOO great to make this franchise too violent or extreme. You're not gonna see Bourne movies make 890 million. It should be accessible (even with a PG-13 rating) to kids under 13.

 

[Visionary]

What are you talking about, they cut off people's heads in Lord of the Rings, and those are PG-13 films? And made more money than Spider-Man. Every kid and their mother saw that film. Stop making asinine excuses.

 

[Advanced Dark]

What are you talking about, they cut off people's heads in Lord of the Rings, and those are PG-13 films? And made more money than Spider-Man. Every kid and their mother saw that film. Stop making asinine excuses.

Assinine? Anyways those films like you said were PG-13 not rated R so we don't need an R rated Spidey. Also Spidey is NOT Lord of the Rings nor should it feel like it, and Spidey films should not show that kind of gore or heads rolling off. Not needed and never will be.

 

[Mr Jide]

Bourne isn't going to make spidey numbers at the BO because it's Bourne. Spider-Man is a household name and a staple of iconic pop-culture, has been so for almost 50 years. People need to stop fooling themselves into thinking that the movies made money because they thought it was good, no. The movies made a tonne because, the brand name, spider-man, sold tickets like hot cakes.

We've already established that R-rating spider-man just won't happen but there are elements that can be considered R that occur in pg-13 movies and films like Bourne and Casino Royale are prime examples of this. LOTR is another example and even jurassic park was a pg-13 and that film had a t-rex eat some guy while he was hiding out in the toilet.

 

[Visionary]

Assinine? Anyways those films like you said were PG-13 not rated R so we don't need an R rated Spidey. Also Spidey is NOT Lord of the Rings nor should it feel like it, and Spidey films should not show that kind of gore or heads rolling off. Not needed and never will be.

Spider-Man needs an R-rating because the writers, director and producers don't utilize their PG-13 rating that they have, they caters to kids more than teens/adults. Their mindset of writing is somewhere between a "G" and "PG" rating, we're on a Disney movie level. It is needed, unless you want more singing and dancing and villains who are not really evil or bad. For the 100th time, no one mentioned gore within Spidey's films, I'm just stating how weak Spider-Man's PG-13 is compared to other PG-13 films. And showing you that you can have adult elements in Spider-Man and still have massive amounts of kids going to see the films, like Lord of the Rings. You said if these elements were added it'll make less money, and I pointed out a movie like "LOTR" that has just as many or more kids going to it than Spider-Man. There was no gore in the latest BOURNE movie, why shouldn't Spider-Man be written on that level of intensity and intelligence?

Seriously, you tell me, what intense and dramatic elements do you hope to see if THE LIZARD is the next villain. What would be the most threatening and dangerous thing that you hope to see THE LIZARD do in SM4?

 

[Advanced Dark]

The reason Spidey is a household name is because he's a character people have loved for what...like 50 years. He's never been an R rated character and he has been and always will be accessible to children. He is marketed to people from cradle to grave. Spidey is appealing to children, teens, adults, and even senior citizens who were in their teens or 20's growing up on Spidey. Spiderman sells alot of toys, video games, and pretty much every kind of merchandise you could think of. That's why Spidey should be a lighter PG-13 than most. Regarding Jurassic Park and that scene with the guy on the toilet. That wasn't sustained intensity on an R rated level. Now if they showed a close up of the Dino's mouth and we could hear bones snapping and blood spurting out like in Starship Troopers...that's another thing. I'm all for a more hard edged Spidey but it can't lose the appeal to the younger ones. That's not what Spidey is about, and Sony won't risk hundreds of millions on that kind of movie. If you want a darker Spidey story you could easily go through the comic books and find one that appeals to you. Just don't expect a Spider-Man movie that will horrify kids or make parents question if the movie is ok for them to watch.

 

[Visionary]

Kids went to see Lord of the Rings in bigger numbers than Spider-Man, and they had a lot of mature themes. LOTR are accessible to kids too. You don't seem to get it, by marketing Spider-Man to mostly kids, the quality of the movies will dwindle. You act like Spider-Man won't continue to sell merchandising if someone write the movies with more intensity, drama and intelligence. If LOTR didn't horrify kids, how the hell can Spider-Man?

 

[Mr Jide]

Horrify kids??? LOTR is more horrifying than spider-man and they flocked in droves to go and see it.

 

[Mr Jide]

Kids went to see Lord of the Rings in bigger numbers than Spider-Man, and they had a lot of mature themes. LOTR are accessible to kids too. You don't seem to get it, by marketing Spider-Man to mostly kids, the quality of the movies will dwindle. You act like Spider-Man won't continue to sell merchandising if someone write the movies with more intensity, drama and intelligence.

Exactly. spider-man can be a lot more intense and stretch the pg-13 rating and still maintain its core audience, hell, it'll gain a wider audience as more adults won't find the movies disney-ishly childish.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Kids went to see Lord of the Rings in bigger numbers than Spider-Man, and they had a lot of mature themes. LOTR are accessible to kids too. You don't seem to get it, by marketing Spider-Man to mostly kids, the quality of the movies will dwindle. You act like Spider-Man won't continue to sell merchandising if someone write the movies with more intensity, drama and intelligence. If LOTR didn't horrify kids, how the hell can Spider-Man?

There's a bit of a difference. In Lord of the rings it's in a fantasy world with monsters, creatures, wizards, ghosts, etc...A kid seeing a monsters head cut off getting an arrorw thrust through his eye is one thing. Spider-Man of course is fantasy as a character but it's set in a more "human" world. I know the villains are fantasy as well but the setting is more grounded in reality aside from the hero and villains. Kids can relate to Peter Parker as being like them. Who hasn't wanted to be Spider-Man at one point in their life. I'm probably not explaining it right but there's a difference in thousands of monsters getting killed and in a movie like Spider-Man showing violent acts on humans. And yeah I know in LOTR the humans were hurt or killed too but everything surrounding that films was fantasy. It's easier to detach from.

Howabout this. Give me an example of a scene you'd like to see and describe it.

I thought Spider-Man had it's share of violence and a bit of gore with the death of the Goblin, the pumpkin bomb disentrations, and in Spider-Man 2 every scene with Doc Ock was intense.

 

[Visionary]

That's just it, there is no difference, kids know that both films are fictional/fantasy movies, they're not idiots like the filmmakers will have you think they are. The only difference between LOTR and Spidey is, one movie is written with balls, drama, intensity and intelligence. And the other should be called Disney's Spider-Man.

Howabout this. Give me an example of a scene you'd like to see and describe it.

You'll probably go running scared to your mommy.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ So you want Spider-Man movies to be filled with scenes where adults are running scared for their mommies? Ok conversation is now over. There's a good reason you'll never be a producer of Marvel movies. LOL

 

[DACrowe]

I agree I would use a more mature tone if I made the Spidey movies...but oh wait, I'M NOT. These movies fit Sam Raimi's personality and I think the first two are quite good while the second is only decent at best, but either way Raimi does not make Bourne movies. And last time I read the comics the fights were never that gritty either. They were big spectacular spectacles (I'm paraphrasing Stan the man, here) that were meant for everyone. I love Bourne 1 and 3 (2 was not that good, I thought), but that tone really doesn't jive with Spidey.

I think people just like to *****. Well enjoy.

P.S. I'd say even if RAimi is ocnservative (I highly doubt he'd be a neo-con), considering his third movie was about a guy learning to forgive someone who wronged him and letting a killer (accidental or not) go and finding redemption for the both of 'em is about as progressive as you're going to get in a movie about a good guy beating up bad guys and stopping 'em.

 

[Liquid Snake]

He should just give up. Spiderman 3 was trash. Imean it's probably not his fault alone, but as a director doesn't he want to move on to something else? I like his earlier movies better than all the spiderman movies.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Exactly. spider-man can be a lot more intense and stretch the pg-13 rating and still maintain its core audience, hell, it'll gain a wider audience as more adults won't find the movies disney-ishly childish.

These film's are as intense as they should be. In fact, they have as much intensity as the Spidey comic's did. Now I know that there was Kraven's Last Hunt, Carnage killing people, etc, but think aobut the battle's Spidey had with the Green Goblin, Electro, Doc Ock, Sandman, etc. Those battle's, without a doubt, have as much intensity as the Spidey film's do. Why add to the intesity when it's staying on the same road of intensity as the comic's had?

 

[Visionary]

Are you people even trying to make sense?

 

[Advanced Dark]

No. We've given up on trying.