The Amazing Spider-Man Script getting a rewrite

[MrSpyder]

Sometimes writers proofread other material to either improve or make changes. My feeling is Alvin will put his touches on the script. But if they want a reboot they should stay with new writers

 

[mre]

See, the thing is is that none of the Spider-Man movies were failures.
They all made massive loads of cash.
...And I seem to remember they went with the reboot because Sam and Co decided they couldn't do a decent movie in the time they had, so they opted out.
So to correct a bunch of people here, getting Sergent to re-write the script is not a bad move because he "failed" at the other movies, but more because they should be distancing themselves from the previous movies, mostly because they are promising something new and fresh.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

This whole 'Oh, oh, oh, Raimi sucks, his crew sucks, it all sucks' bandwagon is getting a little old.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

This whole 'Oh, oh, oh, Raimi sucks, his crew sucks, it all sucks' bandwagon is getting a little old.

 

[redfirebird2008]

83 year old gramps writing a teen flick. Hmmm...

Sony is clueless. Apparently they did not learn the lessons of studio meddling that WB taught them in the 1990's with Batman. I never would have thought the Spidey franchise would end up in such a chaotic situation after how successful the first two movies were, both in quality and box office. Somehow Sony managed to screw up something that should have been impossible to screw up.

 

[spider-neil]

Sure I can. Venom's origin isn't complex at all. It's actually overly simple. Eddie hates Peter. Symbiote hates Peter. They bond and try to kill Peter.

Only people who think Venom is a great character care about dragging his story out, with scenes of him stalking Peter and crap.

And since no one has read the Vulture/Sandman script, no one knows it's quality level. The reason for doctoring the script wasn't because it was bad. It was because it didn't have Venom.

Venom wasn't the problem with Spidey 3. The plot points as written could have worked. It wa the structure of the scenes. It was hthat Sandman was relegated to being a special effect. Peter and MJ were porly written. The dialgoue was garbage. Harry's character arc was mish-mash. He's evil. Then he's not evil. Then he is evil. Then he's not evil. And for no plausible reason. Marko killing Ben was just something for Spidey to be really mad about.

All of these things should have been fixed by a good script doctor. Sure, having to work under Arad and apparently his wfe must've been a problem as well, but There's little to suggest that Sargent is a good addition to the equation. I think the script has been the problem in EVERY Spidey film.

my point is they should have looked at all the elements in the movie

the origin of the black suit
the introduction of venom
sandman daughter
sandman origin
peter's darker personality
harry revenge plot
JJJ time
EBJ revenge plot
MJ's rise and fall on the stage

look how many elements in the movie, LOADS of people (myself included) were saying this movie would be bloated with too much to flesh out characters properly. sergent was brought in to 'polish' SM3. you can't polish a turd. that's way he can't be blamed, the decision from sony, avi and sam should have come earlier to drop one of the villians.
they should have either dropped venom and fleshed out the sandman daughter plotline or dropped sandman and fleshed out the black suit/venom plot line and THEN called sergent to polish the script.

 

[spider-neil]

83 year old gramps writing a teen flick. Hmmm...

Sony is clueless. Apparently they did not learn the lessons of studio meddling that WB taught them in the 1990's with Batman. I never would have thought the Spidey franchise would end up in such a chaotic situation after how successful the first two movies were, both in quality and box office. Somehow Sony managed to screw up something that should have been impossible to screw up.

read the article for pete's sake he isn't WRITING the script he is fine tuning it.

 

[dark_b]

this writter was not hired to writte the script. he was hired to polish the script. to make changes based on the studios notes.

everything that will bein the script will be what the studio wants.

some here are acting like this writter will make hes own story .

 

[dark_b]

83 year old gramps writing a teen flick. Hmmm...

Sony is clueless. Apparently they did not learn the lessons of studio meddling that WB taught them in the 1990's with Batman. I never would have thought the Spidey franchise would end up in such a chaotic situation after how successful the first two movies were, both in quality and box office. Somehow Sony managed to screw up something that should have been impossible to screw up.

he is updating-polishing the script

he is not starting from scratch

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

This whole 'Oh, oh, oh, Raimi sucks, his crew sucks, it all sucks' bandwagon is getting a little old.

Raimi gave us two excellent films

the third was horrible due to outside factors, not Raimi

I for one appreciate what the man has accomplished (1 bad outting, like I said, due to outside forces, isn't going make me condem the man). Guy has proven to the world time and time again that he has talent, so the negativity towards him is far from warrented

 

[Rodrigo90]

This whole 'Oh, oh, oh, Raimi sucks, his crew sucks, it all sucks' bandwagon is getting a little old.

I dont hate Sam and I dont hate the 3rd movie. But you have to admit, it was incredibly camp and felt rushed. MJ and Harry doing the twist,Peter strutting and dancing was basically WTF?!,it made me cringe,but as a fun loving human-being,away from being a fan and taking things a bit too harsh,I loved it.

I really cant fathom why some people bash Raimi,cause he gave us Spider-Man 1 and 2, Ive seen some great movies in my life,but SM1&2 were so well written,had strong characters,enticing storylines,they really were a credit to film-making.

They're movies I enjoy today because I can still relate too,thats what made Spider-Man truly successful,is that he is a relatable character. I just hope the reboot captures that emotional and human element like what Sam did.

 

[Batspider77]

doesn`t / written by a five years old.


See what I did there?

If not then :

Spoiler

grammar fail.

English isn´t my first Language but i´m sure everyone gets what i mean,even it isn´t in Perfect English.

 

[The Squirrel]

You can blame the studio all you want, but in the end, it is the director's job to make it work, which Sam failed to do in SM3. That is the only problem I have with him. He turned out a bad film, so sue me. I still love the first two.

But if you are going to polish the script, is it that hard to get someone who didn't work on the last three movies?

 

[©KAW]

But if you are going to polish the script, is it that hard to get someone who didn't work on the last three movies?

Indeed, that's what I'm saying.

 

[spider-neil]

You can blame the studio all you want, but in the end, it is the director's job to make it work,

you can't be serious? do you think its a coincedence that the majority of excellent movies had a very hands off approach from the studios. name an excellent movie, chances are the studio just let the director get on with it.

 

[©KAW]

They were all to blame, but the director is the one who's going to bare the most blame regardless, because he's named (while taking the money and the credit) as the director.

If Batman 3 sucks, people will blame Nolan, period. They don't care about what ramblings that goes on to get to the final product. You place your name as the director on a film and take the money you're being paid to get that film made, then you own that damn movie, period.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

I dont hate Sam and I dont hate the 3rd movie. But you have to admit, it was incredibly camp and felt rushed. MJ and Harry doing the twist,Peter strutting and dancing was basically WTF?!,it made me cringe,but as a fun loving human-being,away from being a fan and taking things a bit too harsh,I loved it.

I really cant fathom why some people bash Raimi,cause he gave us Spider-Man 1 and 2, Ive seen some great movies in my life,but SM1&2 were so well written,had strong characters,enticing storylines,they really were a credit to film-making.

They're movies I enjoy today because I can still relate too,thats what made Spider-Man truly successful,is that he is a relatable character. I just hope the reboot captures that emotional and human element like what Sam did.

Oh, I would never say that Spider-Man 3 was without camp. I'm just mildly annoyed by the fact that nobody had much to say about anything wrong with Raimi's series (pre-3) before someone else brought it up. It's just trendy to say, 'Yeah, Raimi definitely was bad, what a bad bad bad man, he sucks, yeah.' these days.

 

[redfirebird2008]

you can't be serious? do you think its a coincedence that the majority of excellent movies had a very hands off approach from the studios. name an excellent movie, chances are the studio just let the director get on with it.

Not entirely true. Back in the Golden Age of Hollywood, producers had a much stronger hand in the making of great movies. Here's a quote from Alfred Hitchcock about mega-powerful producer David O. Selznick:

The most flattering thing Mr. Selznick ever said about me - and it shows you the amount of control - he said I was the "only director" he'd "trust with a film."

 

[spider-neil]

I remember specifically an interview with sam where he talked about his love of the silver age and all but said he hated venom, one dimensional blah blah. I seriously for the life of me can't believe avi put venom forwards to sam, that is basically saying I don't care about your script (with sandman, vulture and gg2) and I don't care you dislike venom and I don't care its REALLY late in the day to make changes all I care about is the bottom line.

what I don't get is why couldn't they wait until sam finished his trilogy HIS way and then with movie 4, be it a reboot or a continuation with new characters THEN introduce venom, give it to a director who actually has a passion for the character rather than a director who will focus on the silver age villians and treat venom as an after thought. avi was more concerned with money than a decent movie, its as simple as that. I really hope he has nothing to do with thor or the avengers.

avi is a ****ing idiot.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

^agreed

it's Arad I blame, not Raimi

he gave us 2 solid films, an outside factor(avi arad) came in and messed up his third (would be solid film) by shoe horning Venom into the picture, THAT'S when it all went sour.

 

[chaseter]

83 year old gramps writing a teen flick. Hmmm...

Sony is clueless. Apparently they did not learn the lessons of studio meddling that WB taught them in the 1990's with Batman. I never would have thought the Spidey franchise would end up in such a chaotic situation after how successful the first two movies were, both in quality and box office. Somehow Sony managed to screw up something that should have been impossible to screw up.

I don't know what is more vomit inducing; you making fun of a man that has helped write some great scripts, or you wanting this movie to be a teen flick.

 

[©KAW]

Then Raimi should have said no to him, that he didn't want Venom in the film. At some point Raimi agreed. They both get the blame from me, Raimi more so because he didn't have the balls to say no.

Not to mention, the fanboys of Venom was begging baby Jesus that he be in SM3.

 

[chaseter]

That is what happens when studios listen to fanboys. We finally got Gambit...crap. We finally got Deadpool...crap. We finally got an Indy IV...bleh.

Yes, I do agree that Raimi is part to blame. He did continue with the film without standing his ground. However, making one mediocre film after a great film and an amazing film doesn't mean throw him under the bus he has lost his way. He should have been able to redeem himself and pull the franchise he started back out of the ground. I was glad to see that he didn't bend over to the studio this time and do the crap they wanted. You say Raimi should have stood up for himself with SM3 but when he does so with SM4, you criticize him. Which is it? He quit after he got pushed around instead of going on and making SM3.5. You should be applauding him.

 

[Crook]

That is what happens when studios listen to fanboys. We finally got Gambit...crap. We finally got Deadpool...crap. We finally got an Indy IV...bleh.

Eh? How is this in any way the fans' fault? I'm pretty sure they wanted them, only under the condition that it would be handled well.

 

[chaseter]

Fans screamed for Venom so the studio thought hey...we can make some more money this way. The fans screamed for Deadpool and Gambit so the studio thought hey...we can make some more money this way. The fans screamed for Indy IV and George Lucas was salivating and look at what we got.

Even McG listened to fans for Terminator Salvation and that movie was terrible. Go look over in the Transformers forum and read some of the ridiculous stuff hardcore fans want to be in those already mediocre movies. Don't listen to fans. Do what you want because you will never please everybody and if you try to please everybody, your movie is going to suck.