Sequels New Raimi Interview

[Mr Jide]

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?

Um, No. What spidey comics have you been reading? Those 50p spidey comics with the free colouring pencils and bubble gum aren't cannon, mate. The fights in the comics are indeed huge spectacles but if you actually bother to immerse yourself into the fight, you'll find it's a lot more intense than you think. Take Ben Reilly's death for example. Norman tore that guy up and tried to stab spidey in the back from behind only for Ben to intervene, getting stabbed in the process and have his ass fall from a building and crash land onto a freakin car. Or how about in MK spidey when spidey is bashing Norman's brains in with a heavy, metallic box or what ever it was. If you think these movies are capturing the right amount of intensity, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Um, No. What spidey comics have you been reading? Those 50p spidey comics with the free colouring pencils and bubble gum aren't cannon, mate. The fights in the comics are indeed huge spectacles but if you actually bother to immerse yourself into the fight, you'll find it's a lot more intense than you think. Take Ben Reilly's death for example. Norman tore that guy up and tried to stab spidey in the back from behind only for Ben to intervene, getting stabbed in the process and have his ass fall from a building and crash land onto a freakin car. Or how about in MK spidey when spidey is bashing Norman's brains in with a heavy, metallic box or what ever it was. If you think these movies are capturing the right amount of intensity, you are sadly mistaken.

That's why I said "I know there is Kraven's Last Hunt, Carnage killing people, etc." I've read the Spidey comic's that everybody else has read, the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and modern day, though OMD is a bad storyline, but that's another story.

Anyway, my point is that there is no need to add more violence to the fight's if it's really not needed and in this case it isn't needed. Take the Batman franchise for instance. batman Begin's was a dark film and was the most violent in my eye's, but that's what Batman should be. I've heard alot of people say it. Spider-Man is not a violent character. Sure in the comic's there were intense thing's, such as when Venom beat up Black Cat to find out where Spider-Man was. I'm sure there was even more intense thing's to. However, not only is the film rated PG-13, but there has hardly been any complaint's on the lack of intensity. I certainly never had a problem with it. I hope it keeps on going the way it is.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I seem to remember GG getting impaled by a glider, Harry getting stabbed by a razor bat (needing to pull it out of his should), Spidey getting bloodied up in the final fight in SM1, and the Burglar falling to his death out a window.

You guys act like these past 3 movies have been nothing but milk toast and cheesy violence with no intensity, and if you guys truly believe that, I feel you are being blinded by your own personal opinions of the movies and not what is in front of you.

Could these movies be more intesne? Probably, but saying that there has been no intensity in these movies is flat wrong.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I seem to remember GG getting impaled by a glider, Harry getting stabbed by a razor bat (needing to pull it out of his should), Spidey getting bloodied up in the final fight in SM1, and the Burglar falling to his death out a window.

You guys act like these past 3 movies have been nothing but milk toast and cheesy violence with no intensity, and if you guys truly believe that, I feel you are being blinded by your own personal opinions of the movies and not what is in front of you.

I completley agree. What more is needed to be satisfying to some people? From being rated-R to amount of intensity, it really can go too far. I've said tihs before and I will say it again, keep the level of intensity the way the it is. We have a good amount of intensity in these film's right now.

 

[DACrowe]

Um, No. What spidey comics have you been reading? Those 50p spidey comics with the free colouring pencils and bubble gum aren't cannon, mate. The fights in the comics are indeed huge spectacles but if you actually bother to immerse yourself into the fight, you'll find it's a lot more intense than you think. Take Ben Reilly's death for example. Norman tore that guy up and tried to stab spidey in the back from behind only for Ben to intervene, getting stabbed in the process and have his ass fall from a building and crash land onto a freakin car. Or how about in MK spidey when spidey is bashing Norman's brains in with a heavy, metallic box or what ever it was. If you think these movies are capturing the right amount of intensity, you are sadly mistaken.

That was an intense scene, but y'know you are pulling from MK Spidey (the most violent 12 issue straight run in Spidey comics) and all the '90s crap post-KLH that tried to be dark aka Carnage, Maximum Carnage, Revelations (which I actually liked) and anything GG or symbiote related afterwards. Even Ock's death (though temporary) was pretty brutal....

but, Raimi has made it more than clear he is pulling from the '60s and early '70s of Spidey comics. You show me the balls to the walls action in there. Remember the character is an icon for children first and just because many recent stories are very violent doesn't mean that is the iconic iamge, plus most of 'em suck.

I mean Spidey ate a dude's head in The Other, it was still a terrible story.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. I'm not saying that the character shouldn't be more intense, I would love for more intensity in the action sequences. I was just pointing out hte golden era of Spidey did not have what you are talking about.

 

[baerrtt]

What is this obsession from some fans to have an R rating for everything even when the source material deems it unneccessary? Spider Man has ALWAYS been targeted mainly for kids re of how 'intense' a storyline or fight scene appeared/appears. Though this is movie related I sometimes blame these obsessions on the comic book writers/companies themselves. Mature/good storytelling is one thing, shock tactics (violence etc) is quite another. Batman the Animated series knew that but never forgot it was mainly a kids/family show. Comic book sales and comic books being sold in much more places than they used to be would be up if the makers occasionally remembered who superhero comics were primarily aimed for (children).

The effect of Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, The Killing Joke etc in the last 20 years IMO hasn't always been healthy.

 

[Mr Jide]

Yeah, these movie and it's source materials are for kids yet, you are the same people who are first in line to whine about Raimi's kids being in this movie, saying utterly stupidly, kiddy stuff.
This is the sort of mentality that resulted in sm3 turning out the way it did and is why as long as things never change, we'll continue to get the all dancing, singing, crying, pasty spider-man, we've had thus far.

Hey Raimi and especially to you sony, this may help you...

...

Spoiler

www.growsomegoddamballs.com

 

[UltimateJustin]

Also, the quirkiness that gave these movies a personality isnt a bad thing. Even if you dont like the direction the Spiderman trilogy went, it was clearly more inspired and alive than Ghost Rider or Van Helsing. They could have more violence in Spiderman movies and it'd be straight, but if you seriously wrote Spiderman into a gritty world like he was Jason Bourne, I think it would be ******ed. It would be sillier than the movies own sometimes silly, light hearted ways. You want to retcon entire characters personality's like JJJ who has been a part of Spiderman forever just because that would make Spiderman more realistic. It just wouldnt work, only someone who listens to metal and takes it seriously could think different.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Yeah, these movie and it's source materials are for kids yet, you are the same people who are first in line to whine about Raimi's kids being in this movie, saying utterly stupidly, kiddy stuff.
This is the sort of mentality that resulted in sm3 turning out the way it did and is why as long as things never change, we'll continue to get the all dancing, singing, crying, pasty spider-man, we've had thus far.

Hey Raimi and especially to you sony, this may help you...

...

Spoiler

www.growsomegoddamballs.com

SM3 failed because the script had too many plot holes, was too convoluted and its main theme of forgiveness made no sense since there was no motivation for Sandman to either team with Venom or have a face turn at the end of the match. It has nothing to do with the tone of the films that helped create two of the most praised comic adaptations ever, or those specific scenes that you mentioned.

It might have SOMETHING to do with the crying.

 

[Mr Jide]

SM3 failed because the script had too many plot holes, was too convoluted and its main theme of forgiveness made no sense since there was no motivation for Sandman to either team with Venom or have a face turn at the end of the match. It has nothing to do with the tone of the films that helped create two of the most praised comic adaptations ever, or those specific scenes that you mentioned.

It might have SOMETHING to do with the crying.

And you've just proved my point. SM3 failed because the people in charge don't know what they're doing. The script was pathetic and in retrospect, its easy to see that the movie was primarily a vehicle to sell a load of bull sh1t and evidently enough, the whole world lapped it up, leaving nothing to waste.
How many of you when watching the trailers believed you were going to see a symbiot-influenced badass peter/spidey? All of you. Yet, you were shocked when the badass was revealed to ba an all dancing, finger-snapping pansy, why? Because they got the TONE wrong not to mention the character and primarily wanted to sell toys to the snot-nosed kids who aid in making Sony's wallets fatter and TMags' waist line wider. Raimi had no business writing this thing. Period. The script was garbage, made little to no sense but then again, I suppose Raimi was merely being consistent by delievring a third grossly dissapointing spidey movie.

 

[Mr Jide]

Also, the quirkiness that gave these movies a personality isnt a bad thing. Even if you dont like the direction the Spiderman trilogy went, it was clearly more inspired and alive than Ghost Rider or Van Helsing.

Why do people insist on comparing spider-man to other crappy films? How about we judge spidey on the little merrit it has. These movies were just bad all by themselves.

They could have more violence in Spiderman movies and it'd be straight, but if you seriously wrote Spiderman into a gritty world like he was Jason Bourne, I think it would be ******ed.

Why? Bourne shows how things could happen in a realistic way that actually makes sense. For example, peter gets slapped by harry in sm2 and ends up looking roughed up. Now, as spider-man, during ock's presentation, Ock wacks him across the face, with a swift and hard connection with a tentacle, yet there isn't a bruise or mark on his face when we see peter come out of the building. The least they could have done is given the guy a damn nose bleed or something.

It would be sillier than the movies own sometimes silly, light hearted ways. You want to retcon entire characters personality's like JJJ who has been a part of Spiderman forever just because that would make Spiderman more realistic. It just wouldnt work, only someone who listens to metal and takes it seriously could think different.

What?

Look, regarding JJ. he's been reduced to a clown in these movies and all this talk of spiey being hated by the city makes no sense in anyway shape or form because there hasn't been a single shred of evidence in the slightest to support these claims.

 

[Spider-Jay]

At the end of the day, nothing will change.

If SM3 was a disaster of B&R-like proportions (and comercially it wasn't), then I could see them maybe attempting to change route with a more mature story-line. However, commercially it did no fail so I don't see a major change in the future. If anything, Sony may want to clean up the script that has plagued the series- since its flaws were most obvious in SM3.

But the tone will not change as long as its raking in dough- which it is.

Therefore:

Those of you who want a serious, darker tone: Sorry, you will continue to be disappointed and view the movies as crap.

Those of you who loved the light-hearted tone: You will continue to enjoy the movies for what they are.

That's the way it is. Take the movies for what they are or move on.

 

[Visionary]

I don't want to move on. And regardless to what one say and do, I will not allow it to sway me.

I never said I don't like the movies, I just think they could be a lot better, if the filmmakers gave them some balls and chance to evolve behind what we are accustomed to seeing--in a world of generic comic book films. Which only a few have the title of not carrying, which are usually films without an icon in them, sadly enough.

And what's with this darker tone stuff, I'm seen various movies that are both PG-13 or R-rated that didn't have a dark tone? But it was handled with a lot less juvenile intent to the writing.

 

[Spider-Jay]

I never said I don't like the movies, I just think they could be a lot better, if the filmmakers gave them some balls and chance to evolve behind what we are accustomed to seeing--in a world of generic comic book films. Which only a few have the title of not carrying, which are usually films without an icon in them, sadly enough.

Is Batman Begins one of them? I liked how BB was a darker, more mature film that eveyone still liked.

Looks like TDK will be even better.

 

[Blader5489]

I never said I don't like the movies, I just think they could be a lot better, if the filmmakers gave them some balls and chance to evolve behind what we are accustomed to seeing--in a world of generic comic book films. Which only a few have the title of not carrying, which are usually films without an icon in them, sadly enough.

I think it's odd that you think Spider-Man is a generic comic book movie, when all of your ideas are fairly generic in their own right.

 

[IamProdigy]

Is Batman Begins one of them? I liked how BB was a darker, more mature film that eveyone still liked.

Looks like TDK will be even better.

I had my Spider-Man fix...the third one made me dislike the franchise as a whole and now I'm moving on the The Dark Knight and Iron Man...which should be two really good movies to watch and HOPEFULLY be good trilogies as well.

 

[Spider-Jay]

I had my Spider-Man fix...the third one made me dislike the franchise as a whole and now I'm moving on the The Dark Knight and Iron Man...which should be two really good movies to watch and HOPEFULLY be good trilogies as well.

The Batman trilogy...yes.

As for Iron Man, I'll reserve judgement until I see the movie. I was semi-impressed with the teaser-trailer.

 

[Visionary]

I think it's odd that you think Spider-Man is a generic comic book movie, when all of your ideas are fairly generic in their own right.

Huh, what ideas are you referring to?

Oh, and I have my problems with BB too.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Sometimes people forget Spiderman is a movie for the general population and not just fanboys.

 

[Visionary]

I think we get that.

 

[baerrtt]

Sometimes people forget Spiderman is a movie for the general population and not just fanboys.

Fanboys (some not all) in general do that with everything they like that is aimed at a family audience. Doctor Who, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Superman, Star Trek etc the list is endless. Yes Casino Royale and certain episodes of Who (since its return) don't pull any punches when it comes to the dark stuff, yet that's because those respective characters are more anti heroic than Spiderman is for example. I'm personally glad that at its best (Spider Man 2 IMO) we have a franchise that has touched the hearts of general cinemagoers not just due to action/special effects but the acting, scripting and characters (when it's worked). The franchise will, rightly, be remembered as a key example that character driven stories have as much place in action films as those movies (the 80s and 90s) that, at their worst, had nothing but extreme ott violence and language to recommend them. Some people want a return to the unimaginative generic stuff (as opposed to asking for even better standards of acting, directing etc) because they can't think outside genre or the stuff they've grown up with which ticked every formulaic box. Before the 80s the action genre (Which the Spider Man movies belong to) gave us films as diverse (and great) as Seven Samurai to The Wild Bunch. Yes the latter film (Peckinpah's classic) had 'balls' but it's a great movie not just because of it's violence but because, with it's focus on characters, it's about a lot more than what's on the surface which, in part, the Spider Man movies are.

 

[baerrtt]

Sometimes people forget Spiderman is a movie for the general population and not just fanboys.

Fanboys (some not all) in general do that with everything they like that is aimed at a family audience. Doctor Who, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Superman, Star Trek etc the list is endless. Yes Casino Royale and certain episodes of Who (since its return) don't pull any punches when it comes to the dark stuff, yet that's because those respective characters are more anti heroic than Spiderman is for example. I'm personally glad that at its best (Spider Man 2 IMO) we have a franchise that has touched the hearts of general cinemagoers not just due to action/special effects but the acting, scripting and characters (when it's worked). The franchise will, rightly, be remembered as a key example that character driven stories have as much place in action films as those movies (the 80s and 90s) that, at their worst, had nothing but extreme ott violence and language to recommend them. Some people want a return to the unimaginative generic stuff (as opposed to asking for even better standards of acting, directing etc) because they can't think outside genre or the stuff they've grown up with which ticked every formulaic box. Before the 80s the action genre (Which the Spider Man movies belong to) gave us films as diverse (and great) as Seven Samurai to The Wild Bunch. Yes the latter film (Peckinpah's classic) had 'balls' but it's a great movie not just because of it's violence but because, with it's focus on characters, it's about a lot more than what's on the surface which, in part, the Spider Man movies are.

 

[baerrtt]

Oops sorry double post.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Besides, the last time a major comic book adaptation had too dark of a tone for the studio it was directly responsible for the creation of Batman Forev and Batmans and Robin. Batman Returns is reason enough why you'll never, ever, ever see a Spiderman movie darker than Michael Jackson.