Sequels Same continuity or reboot?

[Visionary]

Wow. It's one thing to think that SM3 was better than SM2. That's your opinion. But if you honestly believe more people like SM3 more than SM1/2 then you need to go talk to more people.

More people liked SM1/2 over SM3. Fact.

And I assure you, if SM4 is similar in quality to SM3, the numbers will decline. I'm pretty audiences want more something more than mindless action.

Oh, so that's why SM2's numbers declined from SM1. Of less quality and mindless action. Got it.

You have to remember that this is a movie. Hence it must be able to connect us with its characters within its short span. As a movie, its aimed at all audiences and I assure you not everyone knows who Sandman and Venom are. The characters need to be properly developed in order for us to connect and feel for them.

If people wanted to know more about these characters, knowing that they're watching a comic book film, they would buy the comics. And give me a break with the whole connecting to the characters crap, if no one was connected, we wouldn't have 3 comic book films making close to or over 800M a flick. Unless you can point out me to another comic book franchise, that have connected to audiences around the world more than Spidey (with SM3 being its biggest draw), I'm open to hear it.

I'll give you top marks for completely missing my point. I like my villains as well, but they shouldn't be the focus. Their relationship with Spider-Man is what's important. It makes the battles between them more epic and involving. However, the more villains you have, the less developed each relationship would be. Although I would prefer one villain I think two is fine for the next movie.

In the end, all I'm asking for is the cohesiveness we found in the first two films. Without it, we'd end up with a scambled mess like SM3.

Cohesiveness like SM1/SM2, lol. Man, where were you when they were calling SM1/SM2 a chick's flick, and calling SM2 a two hour episode of Dawson's Creek, calling it boring, cheesy, mediocre, overrated and the only good part was the action? I could have really used you around here. They damned Sam Raimi on every turn (even Kevin Smith and Alex Ross). The one word you would never hear around here was "cohesiveness," not when talking about the two films. Unless you were talking about how horrible the characters and relationships were in them compared to the comics. That's the SM1/SM2 I heard on these boards all the live long day, lucky me.

So why should it matter what people say at this point, I've pretty much heard it all?

 

[Venom'sDad]

I :heart:

 

[The Joker]

Box office numbers don't mean jack s*** when it comes to quality of a movie. Take Pirates 3, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Even the critics hated it.

And it made like over 960 million dollars. How the hell did that happen?

 

[Visionary]

Box office numbers don't mean jack s*** when it comes to quality of a movie. Take Pirates 3, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Even the critics hated it.

And it made like over 960 million dollars. How the hell did that happen?

Because people liked watching Pirates 3, they were entertained enough to see it over and over again. It doesn't matter if YOU didn't like it. You people are under some idiotic impression, that if you don't like something, no one else should, and it shouldn't be HUGE at the box office. So it does mean jack sh:t. It just may not mean jack sh:t to YOU.

 

[The Joker]

Because people liked watching Pirates 3, they were entertained enough to see it over and over again. It doesn't matter if YOU didn't like it. You people are under some idiotic impression, that if you don't like something, no one else should, and it shouldn't be HUGE at the box office. So it does mean jack sh:t. It just may not mean jack sh:t to YOU.

Oh ye have little brain, Oscar. I'm not just talking about me. This movie got god awful reviews all around. Even the Pirates fans thought it was muck.

You seriously going to say that Pirates 3 was a better, well crafted movie than the three Spider-Man movies?

Obviously people liked watching it again and again. That was my point. How did such a hated, awful movie make so much money?

It's like Titanic. 600 million domestic? For Titanic? 1,845,034,188 worldwide? Insane money for an average flick.

X-Men 3, the most hated of the franchise, makes the most money out of the three. Made more than Batman Begins did, too. Again, my point is made. Box office doesn't mean anything when it comes to movie quality.

 

[Uber Venom]

Box office does NOT reflect movie quality.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Oh ye have little brain, Oscar. I'm not just talking about me. This movie got god awful reviews all around. Even the Pirates fans thought it was muck.

You seriously going to say that Pirates 3 was a better, well crafted movie than the three Spider-Man movies?

Obviously people liked watching it again and again. That was my point. How did such a hated, awful movie make so much money?

It's like Titanic. 600 million domestic? For Titanic? 1,845,034,188 worldwide? Insane money for an average flick.

X-Men 3, the most hated of the franchise, makes the most money out of the three. Made more than Batman Begins did, too. Again, my point is made. Box office doesn't mean anything when it comes to movie quality.

Pirates 3, like X3, was riding off of the coattail of the previous installments, of'course.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't have the link right now but Peter Travers (a very smart critic) at Rollingstone hit it on the head when he reviewed SM3 and then POTC3. He called SM3 a mess and made fun of Parker and his dancing/goody-ness but enjoyed it because it felt human and at the endo f the day it would be the few of the action summer spectacles that would feel like human hands made it and made it worth watching (I would say HP6 and Bourne Ultimatum also fit that category and surpassed SM3 by leaps and bounds). And then he called Pirates 3 a business proposition. The characters are tepid, boring and thin and it is Disney asking for your money to watch Johnny Depp like a theme park ride that you go to so you can tell people you did it. Not bbecause it is worth the price of admission.

I don't like listening to critics opinions as authority and think for myself but after seeing both of these I went back to his reviews on them b/c he hit the nail on the head.

Anyway, Vis you got a point. I remember when SM1 and SM2 were both immediately liked upon arrival and then within a month of release despised for unfaithfulness and reading thesis long graduate studies masterworks by some posters about how they were flawed and needed to be changed or redone. Now that SM3 is inferior to both, they are great works of art immune to criticism.

I think of the 3 only SM2 is a great movie with SM1 being a good entertaining popcorn flick with some real heart and good acting, directing and scoring to overcome average by the numbers script. SM3 was an extremely flawed but decently entertaining movie that develops plot points from SM2 very well, but falls flat on the newly introduced stuff.


But those are my opinions but now I'll be called too harsh by most on SM1 and too kind to "the complete and utter garbage that is suckage" aka SM3. I figure in a few years when the hype wears off many people will go back and enjoy SM3 for its spectacle and main characters (Peter/MJ/Harry) and forget what they conceived it to be from trailers and slowly accept images of dancing Parker and thin Venom as SM3. But then SM4 will come out and if it has a new cast these movies will all get Burton-ized where they are evil and stupid and praise be to the new people from saving us from Sam Raimi's crapfests (look at the Nolan worshippers).

Of course that isj ust upon the teaster (or teaser poster). If the movie sucks (which if it is a recast, it likely will) SM3 will become idolized like SM1 and SM2 as "the good ol days" a la Bryan Singer's X-Men movies which were once trashed but are now revered by fanboys.

Such a fickle bunch.

Really.

 

[Visionary]

Oh ye have little brain, Oscar. I'm not just talking about me. This movie got god awful reviews all around. Even the Pirates fans thought it was muck.

You seriously going to say that Pirates 3 was a better, well crafted movie than the three Spider-Man movies?

Obviously people liked watching it again and again. That was my point. How did such a hated, awful movie make so much money?

It's like Titanic. 600 million domestic? For Titanic? 1,845,034,188 worldwide? Insane money for an average flick.

X-Men 3, the most hated of the franchise, makes the most money out of the three. Made more than Batman Begins did, too. Again, my point is made. Box office doesn't mean anything when it comes to movie quality.

I can't stress this enough...most people don't give a damn about critics, they decide what they like and don't like for themselves. Except for a few people who can't gather a solid opinion on their own.

There was tons of people who liked Pirates 3, you don't make this kind of money if no one likes it. So not everyone is thinking "I hate this movie and it's awful" because critics say it. I don't see why people are so baffled by this, this is the very element in which movies are made. Pirates has a lot of people who love these films on a mega scale (there's your huge box office dollars right there) for whatever reason. I happen to think they're Johnny Depp's worst films. But there is no doubt, Pirates has the overwhelming majority on its side who likes them a lot, period. Regardless of critcs or haters alike.

I never call a movie a fluke, but Titanic is just one of those movies that captured a lot people attention and imagination. Whether you think it's bad, good or great now, back then people freaking loved the film. I remember watching the news on it, this flick had teenagers and people 60, 70 and 80 years old going back to see it 20 to 30 times. And they were doing this months after its release, it held people's attention, no doubt about it. This is where it set sail, into into the record books. There is no movie of today that can hold people's attention like Titanic did. Today, its one blockbuster this week and another the next, for two months and then they're all gone. Titanic was making money over half a year in theaters, everything released was little to no competition to it.

It all boils down to what people like, and how many times they're willing to see it. You can scream this movie or that movie, is of better quality or it sucks until the cows come home. No one determines the fate of a film but the majority. And the movies above had the majority on their side.

Pirates 3, like X3, was riding off of the coattail of the previous installments, of'course.

That can be said for every successful film in a sequel spawning movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

BO is not a good indicator at all of how popular a film is. It is essentially how many people have seen the film. It is difficult to form an opinion of a film if you haven't seen it. If people want to see a film, then it will have a high BO. It says nothing about whether they were satisfied or not.

Going by Box Office we find out that The Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars film, Philosopher's Stone is the best Potter film, X3 is the best X-Men film, Moonraker was the best Bond film of the pre-Brosnan era, Transformers is better than The Godfather, etc.

 

[Spider-Jay]

Man oh man I'm loving this disagreement. Really, its quite healthy.

If people wanted to know more about these characters, knowing that they're watching a comic book film, they would buy the comics. And give me a break with the whole connecting to the characters crap, if no one was connected, we wouldn't have 3 comic book films making close to or over 800M a flick. Unless you can point out me to another comic book franchise, that have connected to audiences around the world more than Spidey (with SM3 being its biggest draw), I'm open to hear it.

Yes we are connected with series mainstays such as Spidey, MJ, and Harry. That's why when Harry died, it hit us that much harder, simply because we knew well the tortured soul that he was.

However, the same cannot be said of Venom. We never got to know much about him because of decreased screen time. Again, and I cannot reiterate this enough: IT IS A MOVIE. Thus it is aimed at general audiences and as such they have not read the comics to understand the character as they should be. Venom is a great character, we know that from the comics, but we never got a sense of that in the movie, which is a shame. He was portrayed as some whacko reptilian trying to kill Peter. Again b/c of time constraints.

And no, people aren't going to read the comics in order for them to understand the movie. Comic book fans may, but general audience- the most important demographic for moviemakers- will not want to waste their time.

Cohesiveness like SM1/SM2, lol. Man, where were you when they were calling SM1/SM2 a chick's flick, and calling SM2 a two hour episode of Dawson's Creek, calling it boring, cheesy, mediocre, overrated and the only good part was the action? I could have really used you around here. They damned Sam Raimi on every turn (even Kevin Smith and Alex Ross). The one word you would never hear around here was "cohesiveness," not when talking about the two films. Unless you were talking about how horrible the characters and relationships were in them compared to the comics. That's the SM1/SM2 I heard on these boards all the live long day, lucky me.

Who are "they" you speak of? B/c the last time I checked, the link I posted seemed to agree that critics, moviegoers, and SM fans on this board itself saw SM2 of higher quality.

That's the funny thing about his argument. I have shown you that a majority of people feel SM2 is superior. You simply haven't shown anything.

 

[Blader5489]

People are actually telling you how they feel. Come on now, you can't tell me that's not an effective way of finding out how general audiences feel.

It isn't. A few forum posters =/= the general audiences. Like I said, you can link to as many fan reviews as you want but you'll never depict an accurate indication of how many people liked the movie compared to the previous two.

(It's also worth mentioning that while many posters here criticize SM3 more than they praise it, poll numbers on these boards show that a significant amount of people liked the movie more than they disliked it.)

You're correct that, for the most part, critics liked SM2 more than 3 (though the critical reception towards SM3 was more mixed than wholly negative). However, I'm talking about general moviegoers and the only accurate way to measure how they felt about the movie would be to see how many of them liked it enough to pick it up on DVD.

Compare the first week sales of the SM3 DVD to those of the SM2 DVD, and we'll see how many of them preferred 2 to 3 or vice versa.

 

[Spider-Jay]

It isn't. A few forum posters =/= the general audiences. Like I said, you can link to as many fan reviews as you want but you'll never depict an accurate indication of how many people liked the movie compared to the previous two.

Thing is, its not just a few forum posters. Those sites are ones dedicated to finding out how people feel about a film. Thus, you get movie viewers from all around the world with different tastes and therefore bias is greatly eliminated. Therefore they themselves are part of the general audience.

Again its a sample, but that's why I chose the sites with the most movie user reviews.

Evidence is ultimately what it comes to.

And again, as others have stated here, DVD sales are not very accurate. Does buying a DVD tell us that you like SM3 over SM2? Nope. There are numerous factors that could contribute to DVD sales:

a) There could be more people with DVD players now than in 2004
b) Spider-Man's fanbase could have grown since 2004 and thus increase DVD sales
c) Hell, people could be buying it thinking it was Batman for all we know.

The argument here is whether more people like SM3 over SM2.

I've given you numerous random people who tell you exactly how they feel regardless of whether or not you don't think they are part of the general audience.

Your DVD idea simply doesn't do that. It does not say "I'm buying SM3 b/c it was better than SM2". And that's where your idea has its hole.

 

[Blader5489]

Therefore they themselves are part of the general audience.

I never said they weren't part of the general audience, just that they don't represent the general audience as a whole.

Evidence is ultimately what it comes to.

Yes, and what you have is hearsay, not evidence.

Does buying a DVD tell us that you like SM3 over SM2?

No, buying the DVD tells us that people liked SM3. Comparing the sales between the SM2 and SM3 DVDs tells us which movie people preferred.

There are numerous factors that could contribute to DVD sales:

None of which have any major sway over the bulk of sales.

I've given you numerous random people who tell you exactly how they feel regardless of whether or not you don't think they are part of the general audience.

I never said that. I said that they don't represent the entirety of the general audience, so that citing their thoughts on the film is not an accurate way of judging what the entire audience thought. The only way of accurately measuring how many people actually liked the movie is to see how many would be willing to buy it on DVD.

It does not say "I'm buying SM3 b/c it was better than SM2". And that's where your idea has its hole.

That's not even what my idea is. If you're going to criticize me, at least pay attention to what I'm writing.

 

[Spider-Jay]

That's not even what my idea is. If you're going to criticize me, at least pay attention to what I'm writing.

This argument is over whether or not people preferred SM2 over SM3.

Something as absract as measuring by DVD sales is absurd simply because it does not directly compare the two movies. It does not say "I like SM3 over SM2- which is what this whole debacle is about. Get it?

Whereas people in the online community- the most important in our modern age- have expressed their opinion that SM2>SM3.

We're looking for direct answers, DIRECT COMPARISONS. And your DVD idea falls flat in that regard. Numbers of sold DVDs could be affected by numerous circumstances- whether they sway or not is your presumption, but the fact is they do play a part.

You watch a movie, you converse about it to tell how you feel. You don't buy the DVD to get that message out.

BTW here's something about heresay:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hearsay

Well slap me silly, it can be a form of evidence! Whoulda thunk? lol

And for the record, please don't take things personally. I wasn't criticizing you, I was critiquing your idea.

If you need an example:

Critique: Your idea seems to have a hole and falls flat.
Criticize: Your ****ing dumb idiot look at the facts

This is a great debate, just please don't get so sensitive.


In the end, I don't even know why we're debating this. SM fans themselves prefer SM2 and it is seen as the better movie in our community anyways.

 

[Visionary]

Man oh man I'm loving this disagreement. Really, its quite healthy.



Yes we are connected with series mainstays such as Spidey, MJ, and Harry. That's why when Harry died, it hit us that much harder, simply because we knew well the tortured soul that he was.

However, the same cannot be said of Venom. We never got to know much about him because of decreased screen time. Again, and I cannot reiterate this enough: IT IS A MOVIE. Thus it is aimed at general audiences and as such they have not read the comics to understand the character as they should be. Venom is a great character, we know that from the comics, but we never got a sense of that in the movie, which is a shame. He was portrayed as some whacko reptilian trying to kill Peter. Again b/c of time constraints.

Venom is far from a great character. Is this what has you all worked up, you're going to pop a vein in your neck. The audience isn't going to die, because your precious overrated Venom didn't have more screentime and died. If only he had less time in the comics.

And no, people aren't going to read the comics in order for them to understand the movie. Comic book fans may, but general audience- the most important demographic for moviemakers- will not want to waste their time.

Good for them, I would urge them not to waste their time with the comics in the last decade or more, especially the ones with Venom in them.

Who are "they" you speak of? B/c the last time I checked, the link I posted seemed to agree that critics, moviegoers, and SM fans on this board itself saw SM2 of higher quality.

Who are they, those who called SM2 cheesy, hated Doc Ock turning good, saying it's too kiddy, damned Peter and MJ's relationship, called Sam Raimi a hack, hated Tobey as Peter/Spider-Man, hated Kirsten as MJ, called SM2 overrated, damned the CGI, damn the writers, said SM2 was more of the same, said the characters didn't evolve, hated the MUSH. Those who have always wanted a recast, those who wanted a new director, those who wasn't getting a Spider-Man that they didn't think reflect the comics. You think this happened starting with SM3, nope?

"THEY" are the people here, the beloved Spider-Man fans, the purists, and non-fans a like. Who didn't give a damn about what critics were saying, they took the movie apart piece by piece, before and after the new wore off. This was always going on before SM3, when there was no SM3. I've never heard but a few who use the word "QUALITY" when describing SM1-SM2. They were too busy complaining and wanting to behead Sam Raimi.

That's the funny thing about his argument. I have shown you that a majority of people feel SM2 is superior. You simply haven't shown anything.

You have shown me absolutely nothing, nothing that I haven't heard people say about SM1 or SM2. When you have shown me a die-hard Spider-Man purist who loves SM1/SM2 (or even like them) as much as you claim they do, then and only then, will you have shown me something.

 

[DACrowe]

BTW by purists he means Herr Logans, Mr. Parker types. I'm not saying they're the same type of person but they're purists essientially.

 

[Spider-Jay]

You have shown me absolutely nothing, nothing that I haven't heard people say about SM1 or SM2. When you have shown me a die-hard Spider-Man purist who loves SM1/SM2 (or even like them) as much as you claim they do, then and only then, will you have shown me something.

Ahh I believe we have solved the problem here. I'm not surprised really.

You sir, are a die hard SM purist aren't you? And that is why you liked SM3 the best? I would agree with you on that. SM3 was the most faithful to the comics whereas SM1 and 2 strayed from its comic roots.

The problem is, that doesn't always work for movies. Since we are comic book junkies, we can enjoy SM3 b/c we know the story and we want to see the battles we have read on paper come to life on the big screen.

Whereas, those who take the movie for what it is- a movie, will enjoy SM1 and 2 b/c they are better suited as a "movie".

And that is where you and I differ:

You, as a fan of the comics would like to see faithfulness and the realization of seeing the many characters you grew up with on the screen and doing battle with our hero.

Whereas as I, a fan who views it as a "movie" and not a "comic book movie" prefer to see a strong story, character and relationship development, and other fundamental movie properties on the big screen.

And that's totally fine.

Its happened with Harry Potter, LOTR, etc. The pure fans want faithfulness to the source material while the general movie fans wanna see a movie that makes us feel and delivers a message .

Now I guess it depends on who Sony wants to please: General audiences or the comic fans.

Tough call really, seeing as how the pure comic fans are the reason why this film is made in the first place. However, general moviegoers are the majority.

In that sense I will say that yes, you sir are right, pure comic fans do enjoy SM3 more. And yes, I cannot show you a purist who enjoys SM1/2.

As well, general movie fans prefer the earlier two due to their lack of knowledge of the source material and for treating it as what it is: a movie, not a comic book movie. This I have shown.

So the question is, who should Sony please with the future installments:

The hardcore SM fans or general movie goers?

Wow, this convo has turned out great.

BTW, Venom is not the reason I disliked SM3. I'm not a fan of Venom. I am a fan of thought-inducing story plots though, that is why I disliked the movie. Because I am more of a movie fan than a comic fan. And thus, the story is more important to me than the action.

 

[S_H_F_4839]

This is an interesting discussion.

I have watched all three films like many on the boards and I liked the first one it had its flaws but all films do you would be hardpressed to find a perfect movie, comic or otherwise but on the whole it was a good film. Of the Three I prefered SM2, I really connected with it, but like the first one it had flaws.

I grew up reading amazing and spectacular that my dad had collected over the years, so I had what I consider a pretty good idea of spiderman and the characters he interacts with. So upon watching the first spiderman I walked out dissappointed with the way the comic side of it was handled but I also recognized on the film side it had something going for it. I was impressed by it, I even remember the first trailer that was released, the one with the WTC towers, my dad and I saw that and we both snapped to attention and we hyped ourselves up for over a year about it.

When the film came out we both liked it, but like I said I recognized it had its flaws the ones that stand out for me was the goblin suit which I understood the need to go that way but wished they had made some slight alterations to it, also something else I was bothered by was the use of the bridge sequence from the death of gwen stacy arc, I mean I have the issue and it means alot to me. I think they could have come up with something else, and saved that arc for gwen.

I liked the film overall and I started like I am sure alot of people on here did about the sequel where it would go, where I would like to see it go, things of that nature but my mind started turning and I did a fan fiction on it like a bunch of fans did but mine started to disprove all the people claiming venom could not be used in the sequel. When I was writing though I wanted to get away from the alien aspect of venom, and I see where raimi and the writers might have had a hard time developing the character so when I heard of him being used in Sm3 I hoped for the best expected the worst. I went in and watched Sm3 and I got to say my biggest dissappointment wasn't how venom was portrayed it was the way they went back in and changed uncle bens death, I understand wanting peter to learn a lesson, but there are other lessons other than forgiveness one of the issues that I remember was the one where he let Doc Ock beat him to keep him from using a chemcial on NY.

I remember that the book ended with something like peter beaten and bruised in his apartment looking out the window at the sunsetting and saying something like, don't look now mr. parker but I think you just grew up. I mean there are other lessons that I think they could have gone with is what I am trying to say. As far as one flaw I think all three movies suffered from it was the poor wit they gave him, I mean that was always a big thing for me was the way he would goad his enemies into making a mistake.

 

[Visionary]

Ahh I believe we have solved the problem here. I'm not surprised really.

You sir, are a die hard SM purist aren't you? And that is why you liked SM3 the best? I would agree with you on that. SM3 was the most faithful to the comics whereas SM1 and 2 strayed from its comic roots.

The problem is, that doesn't always work for movies. Since we are comic book junkies, we can enjoy SM3 b/c we know the story and we want to see the battles we have read on paper come to life on the big screen.

Whereas, those who take the movie for what it is- a movie, will enjoy SM1 and 2 b/c they are better suited as a "movie".

And that is where you and I differ:

You, as a fan of the comics would like to see faithfulness and the realization of seeing the many characters you grew up with on the screen and doing battle with our hero.

Whereas as I, a fan who views it as a "movie" and not a "comic book movie" prefer to see a strong story, character and relationship development, and other fundamental movie properties on the big screen.

And that's totally fine.

Its happened with Harry Potter, LOTR, etc. The pure fans want faithfulness to the source material while the general movie fans wanna see a movie that makes us feel and delivers a message .

Now I guess it depends on who Sony wants to please: General audiences or the comic fans.

Tough call really, seeing as how the pure comic fans are the reason why this film is made in the first place. However, general moviegoers are the majority.

In that sense I will say that yes, you sir are right, pure comic fans do enjoy SM3 more. And yes, I cannot show you a purist who enjoys SM1/2.

As well, general movie fans prefer the earlier two due to their lack of knowledge of the source material and for treating it as what it is: a movie, not a comic book movie. This I have shown.

So the question is, who should Sony please with the future installments:

The hardcore SM fans or general movie goers?

Wow, this convo has turned out great.

BTW, Venom is not the reason I disliked SM3. I'm not a fan of Venom. I am a fan of thought-inducing story plots though, that is why I disliked the movie. Because I am more of a movie fan than a comic fan. And thus, the story is more important to me than the action.

A purist, you're new here obviously, I'm the one who wants an R rated Spider-Man film (all three films are the reason why)? And I never said that I like SM3 best, actually, I like all 3 films just about the same. But they all need improvement. I can certainly name just as much that I would like to see improved on in either film (story, character and action-wise) whether it's one villain or ten.

Thought inducing story plots? Hmm, how ironic, because a lot of the fans that mouth off at SM1/SM2, has said that they lack that very element, small world. It seems what you don't like about SM3, I've heard a 1000 times over the years about the previous films. Including lack of character development, even with one villain.

Personally, I would not sweat trying to figure out which ones to please, if I was Sony. Why, because they have both the general audiece and the comic book geeks, despite the constant bashing I see these films take?

 

[SodaPop]

anyways, not to derail the conversation, but anyone else here think that making spider-man 2099 would be a good thing? it could be a reboot without destroying everything the past three films stood for.

 

[Frodo]

Intresting topic. I felt 3 wasn't good but overall I think they film stayed true to the spirit of the comic books if not the roots. The Major change IMO view was the Sandman/Uncle Ben stuff in 3 which was a big change . Nevertheless I think they should continue with the francise though the last one felt tired.

 

[Spider-Jay]

A purist, you're new here obviously, I'm the one who wants an R rated Spider-Man film (all three films are the reason why)? And I never said that I like SM3 best, actually, I like all 3 films just about the same. But they all need improvement. I can certainly name just as much that I would like to see improved on in either film (story, character and action-wise) whether it's one villain or ten.

Thought inducing story plots? Hmm, how ironic, because a lot of the fans that mouth off at SM1/SM2, has said that they lack that very element, small world. It seems what you don't like about SM3, I've heard a 1000 times over the years about the previous films. Including lack of character development, even with one villain.

Personally, I would not sweat trying to figure out which ones to please, if I was Sony. Why, because they have both the general audiece and the comic book geeks, despite the constant bashing I see these films take?

I am quite new actually, lol.

But you said that character dedvelopmenmt was lacking in SM1 and SM2. That may be so. However, the reason why I dislike SM3 may be b/c it lacked character development moreso than the previous two. And maybe that's why it was a much more glaring problem.

As for and R-rated Spidey, meh nothing wrong with wanting that. We've seen Peter's darkside in the comics and a more mature, darker tone would be interesting. I could never see it happening though. Kids are his biggest fans and Sony wouldn't have the backbone to shun them from their demographic.

 

[Mr Jide]

Box office does NOT reflect movie quality.

Actually, to a certain extent it does.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

anyways, not to derail the conversation, but anyone else here think that making spider-man 2099 would be a good thing? it could be a reboot without destroying everything the past three films stood for.

Spider-Man 2099 would most likley bomb. And even if it was a reboot, and it did well at the box office (I highly doubt that), it would still be disliked by alot of us fans (including me).