Sam Raimi should do a romantic comedy

Lord

All Mighty
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
15,476
Reaction score
10
Points
31
Really, some of the comedic scenes in his Spider-man films were quite clever and funny

[YT]rVBNSsdH9ws[/YT]

A film only with scenes like that? I would watch it
 
He should just direct an adaptation of Make Love! The Bruce Campbell Way.
 
agreed. In fact, Sam Raimi should do exclusively RomComs. Only, ever.
 
o_O

Raimi should do RomComs, because that is what he is best suited toward. He should live a successful and happy life with his wife and children living comfortably off of the money he earns making romantic comedy movies that plenty of people will pay to go see.

grudge successfully subsided.
 
I'd say he is most suited for fun horror movies like Evil Dead 2 and Drag Me To Hell, but what do I know?
 
His Spider-man movies were a romantic comedy. Which is why I would hate to see a romantic comedy by Raimi. It wouldn't even have the super-powers and super-villains to make it a little palatable.
 
Imagine a Raimi directed film with a Whedon script. Match made in heaven for a fun horror film.
 
His Spider-man movies were a romantic comedy. Which is why I would hate to see a romantic comedy by Raimi. It wouldn't even have the super-powers and super-villains to make it a little palatable.


I knew someone would say this. :whatever:
 
There have been four Spider-Man movies so far:

1) SPIDER-MAN 2
2) SPIDER-MAN 1
3) THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
4) SPIDER-MAN 3

He made the top two Spider-Man movies to date, possibly and hopefully ASM2 will rise up to the same level as the two above BUT the first one didn't. Raimi is still the director with the most great Spider-Man movies to date. 'Nuff Said. While ASM was good, all throughout, it just reminded me of how much better SM1 was.
 
There have been four Spider-Man movies so far:

1) SPIDER-MAN 2
2) SPIDER-MAN 1
3) THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
4) SPIDER-MAN 3

He made the top two Spider-Man movies to date, possibly and hopefully ASM2 will rise up to the same level as the two above BUT the first one didn't. Raimi is still the director with the most great Spider-Man movies to date. 'Nuff Said. While ASM was good, all throughout, it just reminded me of how much better SM1 was.

Well, I was glad this time the dialogue and plot was so much better than in the first Raimi movie.
 
There have been four Spider-Man movies so far:

1) SPIDER-MAN 2
2) SPIDER-MAN 1
3) THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
4) SPIDER-MAN 3

He made the top two Spider-Man movies to date, possibly and hopefully ASM2 will rise up to the same level as the two above BUT the first one didn't. Raimi is still the director with the most great Spider-Man movies to date. 'Nuff Said. While ASM was good, all throughout, it just reminded me of how much better SM1 was.

I like the part where you state opinion as fact.
 
Fact: My opinion is AS MUCH a fact as anyone else here.

ASM had a good story, but it went areas it didn't need to leading to wincing moments such as Peter dropping in the wrestling arena. Use it or avoid it.

They got the emotion right and best, but they got the tone way way way off. Spidey is supposed to be light and comical. This was dark and depressing. I'm pretty sure even those behind acknowledged that. Hopefully and looking like they keep the emotion while amping up the tone Spidey should have. If it had a lighter tone, it might have been better. But as it stands I just can't see it .
 
Last edited:
Fact: My opinion is AS MUCH a fact as anyone else here.

ASM had a good story, but it went areas it didn't need to leading to wincing moments such as Peter dropping in the wrestling arena. Use it or avoid it.

They got the emotion right and best, but they got the tone way way way off. Spidey is supposed to be light and comical. This was dark and depressing. I'm pretty sure even those behind acknowledged that. Hopefully and looking like they keep the emotion while amping up the tone Spidey should have. If it had a lighter tone, it might have been better. But as it stands I just can't see it .

I often see Peter Parker being miserable, blaming being Spider-man for all that's bad and wrong in his life. His girlfriend was killed and his life has had a good share of desolation. I wouldn't call the tone of that as just "light and comical." Now, Spider-man the character is supposed to be comical, and it was here more and better than in Raimi's S-M1.
 
I like the part where you state opinion as fact.
If you want anything to be taken as fact then let's see each first film's reception:

Spider-Man 1: Rotten Tomatoes - 89% Metacritic - 73
The Amazing Spider-Man: Rotten Tomatoes - 73% Metacritic - 66

In something as subjectice as this the closest you get to fact is this, any other way and it's an opinion, if you disagree with him then it's your opinion just as much as what he stated is his.
 
If you want anything to be taken as fact then let's see each first film's reception:

Spider-Man 1: Rotten Tomatoes - 89% Metacritic - 73
The Amazing Spider-Man: Rotten Tomatoes - 73% Metacritic - 66

In something as subjectice as this the closest you get to fact is this, any other way and it's an opinion, if you disagree with him then it's your opinion just as much as what he stated is his.

I don't get how one opinion is subjective but a lot of opinion are not.
 
Spidey is a character that deflects all of that with sarcasm. He doesn't wallow in it. There's being a dark horse and then there's going too far. And that's the problem with the film. No other adaptation has ever went that dark, maybe MacFarlene's did but it just was far from the Spidey I remember from the comics. And the character was there, he was just swallowed up by the darker than necessary mis-en-scene.

Spider-Man 2 showed it the best. He was going through hardships, yet that never effected the tone of the film. We knew what he was going through without resorting to dreary lighting to say "look how edgy and dark we are." We knew that just through the acting and script. It didn't need to resort to aesthetics to try to blatantly yell to the audience that the character was dealing with hardships. It was the closest to the comic books.

Also Gwen isn't dead yet and Ben died an hour in, the film was dark long before Ben died. It has all to do with the mis-en-scene that completely missed the boat.
 
Last edited:
Spidey is a character that deflects all of that with sarcasm. He doesn't wallow in it. There's being a dark horse and then there's going too far. And that's the problem with the film. No other adaptation has ever went that dark, maybe MacFarlene's did but it just was far from the Spidey I remember from the comics.

I have seen a lot of Spider-man in the 60's and 70's alone and really depressed to say that he just sarcasms everything off.

Spider-Man 2 showed the character the best. He was going through hardships, yet that never effected the tone of the film. It was the closest to the comic books. Also Gwen isn't dead yet and Ben died an hour in, the film was dark long before Ben died.

Well, I still think SM2 is the best of them all.
 
I have seen a lot of Spider-man in the 60's and 70's alone and really depressed to say that he just sarcasms everything off.

It's a defense mechanism. It's a defense mechanism I have and understand. Due to various factors in my life the world's become a place I don't trust in my unconscious. And because of that I always laugh it off, much like Spidey does. It's a way to make the world not so scary anymore. And ASM had plenty of those moments and with the same script and a different director it probably would have been a lot better because they got those sides of Peter right.

The main problem with ASM, as I've stated:

1) The mis-en-scene is way way way too dark. It was almost dark just for dark sake or another attempt to be different from the look of the prior trilogy. That was a huge mis-step. While the character and story can be somewhat dark, you need that vibrancy to deflect that just like Spidey deflects off the darkness in his own life. This is often why the comics are bright regardless of what's going on and why the prior trilogy was bright. It's the mis-en-scene that was the problem.

2) They had to re-tell the origin story but they were not sure of themselves at all. Some things they just changed for the hell of it and sometimes they were too afraid to stray too far. The wrestling is a major indicator of this. If they had never dropped into the arena it would have been so much better, words can't even describe how much better it would be. That's a scenario of do it - or don't do it at all. That scene blatantly read as, "we need to make homage, but we don't want to do what the previous film did." And there were dozens of those instances throughout, either go completely away from that or don't go there at all. I am so happy that there is a sequel now because THAT is how this series should have started, giving them free reigns because the shackles in ASM were plainly visible at times.

3) The emotions and the promise. I was more than excited for the film before it came out. Finally we were going to explore Peter's past and origin. It was promised. It was set out to be the backbone of the film. But the way they went about it? Most of it hit the cutting room floor. They followed it for a moment then completely tossed it out until the very last moment. Not telling the whole story is one thing, but on the same hand you don't need to toss it away completely either. You could have very easily shown Connors telling Peter small things he knew about his father - there was even a scene like that originally in that they tossed out. Point is - ruined potential.

So for those three reasons, the film never gelled. It seemed like it wanted to form it's own identity in its subject yet dropped it halfway through, they seemed to want to go their own direction but felt obliged to make homages that should have never been there and felt more like a punch to the gut in them excluding it (the wrestling), and the mis-en-scene didn't need to be that dark.

That said, with a sequel on its way they should be able to dive into more and be its own entity finally like the first film should have been. Also it seems they've learned their lesson about how dark they made the last film and are adding more energy to this one (and hopefully better image clarity). To me, it's not the character or what he's going through (I'm there myself, adoptee with a chip on my shoulder) but in how it's presented and that the director seemed shackled to the past without making up his mind of if he wanted to stray from origin points or abandon them which just made it seem overall muddled and directionless.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"