Sequels Should Sam Raimi keep making Spider-Man films or should a new guy take over?

[Spider-ManHero12]

Originally Posted by IamProdigy
It's easy to say that since Raimi scewed up the symbiote/Venom story in which Avi Arad really wanted to be in the movie, Arad won't let Raimi direct anyother Spidey movies.

That is just so not true.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Like I said before in the x-men thread maybe it s time to separate things a little bit. It has never been done before in Hollywood but I think Spider-man franchise is big enough to be shared between 2 or 3 movie companies.which mean we could have 1 different spider-man movie each year. I Don't know how many spider-man sequels Sony has in his pocket but I strongly suggest Marvel to revise his copy right. The copy right should not be on the caracter but rather on comics book to movie translation. Let say paramount own any amazing spider-man stories, New line cinema the spectacular spider-man and so on. .. This way its more money for Hollywood, more freedom of creativity for the movie companies and more diversity and fun for the fan and the general public.

I believe Sony has 6 SM films, so Marvel really can't do anything about it.

 

[IamProdigy]

Dudes and dudettes....Arad demanded Raimi put Venom in the movie...Raimi ufcked it up, so as soon as the movie came out, Arad kept saying, "There will be a Venom movie"...which obviously, the poor way Raimi dealt with the Venom character, I bet that would piss Arad off...so why wouldn't he say something to the line of wanting a new director and new direction...isn't Avi Arad like the head honcho anyways?

Sure money speaks louder, but Arad's the boss, and if I was in Avi's shoes, I would find a new director just because Raimi took the advice, but screwed it up BIG TIME.

 

[Blader5489]

Dudes and dudettes....Arad demanded Raimi put Venom in the movie...Raimi ufcked it up, so as soon as the movie came out, Arad kept saying, "There will be a Venom movie"...which obviously, the poor way Raimi dealt with the Venom character, I bet that would piss Arad off...so why wouldn't he say something to the line of wanting a new director and new direction...isn't Avi Arad like the head honcho anyways?

Sure money speaks louder, but Arad's the boss, and if I was in Avi's shoes, I would find a new director just because Raimi took the advice, but screwed it up BIG TIME.

You are a dolt. Arad doesn't give a **** about Venom, he just wants the movie to make money (which it did). The reason they're doing a Venom spinoff--if that actually comes to fruition--is because there's more money to be milked from the Venom cash cow.

Spider-Man 3 made $900 million. That's the total opposite of "screwing up big time."

 

[ANTOINE X]

I believe Sony has 6 SM films, so Marvel really can't do anything about it.

An other trilogy? Damn! I m gonna be hold..Then I Hope I can have kids that will support my theory..

 

[Visionary]

Like I said before in the x-men thread maybe it s time to separate things a little bit. It has never been done before in Hollywood but I think Spider-man franchise is big enough to be shared between 2 or 3 movie companies.which mean we could have 1 different spider-man movie each year. I Don't know how many spider-man sequels Sony has in his pocket but I strongly suggest Marvel to revise his copy right. The copy right should not be on the caracter but rather on comics book to movie translation. Let say paramount own any amazing spider-man stories, New line cinema the spectacular spider-man and so on. .. This way its more money for Hollywood, more freedom of creativity for the movie companies and more diversity and fun for the fan and the general public.

WTF? Sony's not sharing Spider-Man with any other movie studio, and neither is FOX with X-Men. You people and your "Marvel getting the rights back from Sony/FOX" are freakin' delusional.

Here, please share my multi-Billion dollar franchise with me. Sony would kill you and the Pope if you tried to take Spider-Man away from them.

 

[AIRWOLF]

Raimi had his shots with the 3 films and he did an amazing job. But now I want someone else to take over who can bring us a light hearted Spider-Man movie with him retaining his corny humor. A change would be nice, because next thing you know, Electro or Mysterio might turn out to be related to Peter in some unusual way to make them interesting.

 

[ANTOINE X]

WTF? Sony's not sharing Spider-Man with any other movie studio, and neither is FOX with X-Men. You people and your "Marvel getting the rights back from Sony/FOX" are freakin' delusional.

Here, please share my multi-Billion dollar franchise with me. Sony would kill you and the Pope if you tried to take Spider-Man away from them.

Note necessarily. The movie industry is bigger than ever. You have to diversify your product. It s like having just one spider man comics book for all the readers.That s not enough. I understand that Sony wont share his money whit others but at least he can understand that there is also many type of viewers for a spider-man movie. Maybe we can have 1 movie each year with a different director. Maybe it s time to stop doing 1 big budget movie every 3 year and try make everyone happy. Why not switch to multiple spider-man movies?

 

[SLYspyder]

These 3 next movies should be a new take on Spider-Man with a director that can really show us what Spider-Man can do on screen, and a Peter Parker character that is full of life with an actual supporting cast. And villains that are actually 100% evil and the audience can root against them completely, and enough of that every villain must be connected to Peter personally bull. As long as Raimi is director, I fear we may never see any of the above.

Raimi and the cast have done a good job, it's time for them to step down, and let a different director take the helm.

 

[Gamma Burst]

These 3 next movies should be a new take on Spider-Man with a director that can really show us what Spider-Man can do on screen, and a Peter Parker character that is full of life with an actual supporting cast. And villains that are actually 100% evil and the audience can root against them completely, and enough of that every villain must be connected to Peter personally bull. As long as Raimi is director, I fear we may never see any of the above.

Raimi and the cast have done a good job, it's time for them to step down, and let a different director take the helm.

Brilliant post,mate.

 

[pooh912]

keep him dam it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

 

[omid17]

These 3 next movies should be a new take on Spider-Man with a director that can really show us what Spider-Man can do on screen, and a Peter Parker character that is full of life with an actual supporting cast. And villains that are actually 100% evil and the audience can root against them completely, and enough of that every villain must be connected to Peter personally bull. As long as Raimi is director, I fear we may never see any of the above.

Raimi and the cast have done a good job, it's time for them to step down, and let a different director take the helm.

Amen brotha

 

[Visionary]

It's in Sony's best interest to shop around for a new director and cast, it's less money to make the next three films. And there's a good chance that Vanderbilt could be the best writer for the job, and there's a good chance at finding an even better director and cast. A new direction with a new director/cast could do wonders to pump new blood into the franchise. Personally, I can't wait to see what they're doing with Spider-Man 4. I really want someone to give an interview with James Vanderbilt right now.

 

[Visionary]

Note necessarily. The movie industry is bigger than ever. You have to diversify your product. It s like having just one spider man comics book for all the readers.That s not enough. I understand that Sony wont share his money whit others but at least he can understand that there is also many type of viewers for a spider-man movie. Maybe we can have 1 movie each year with a different director. Maybe it s time to stop doing 1 big budget movie every 3 year and try make everyone happy. Why not switch to multiple spider-man movies?

Trust me, there's nothing for Sony to gain (money-wise) by sharing Spider-Man with other studios. Thus, is why it will never happen.

 

[Jick]

I don't mind him...but I'd like to see someone else give a try.

 

[DACrowe]

Like I said before in the x-men thread maybe it s time to separate things a little bit. It has never been done before in Hollywood but I think Spider-man franchise is big enough to be shared between 2 or 3 movie companies.which mean we could have 1 different spider-man movie each year. I Don't know how many spider-man sequels Sony has in his pocket but I strongly suggest Marvel to revise his copy right. The copy right should not be on the caracter but rather on comics book to movie translation. Let say paramount own any amazing spider-man stories, New line cinema the spectacular spider-man and so on. .. This way its more money for Hollywood, more freedom of creativity for the movie companies and more diversity and fun for the fan and the general public.

Really? Really? REA-LLY?!

I'm just saing besides going against the premise of licensing rights (which is Marvel's biggest moneymaking venture currently) or copyright laws, there is such a thing as market saturation. And studios generally do not want to make movies of the same thing in close period, it is just bad business. Ask Sony when they tried to make a Bond movie with an aged Sean Connery and ran it against EON, or Wyatt Earp being released after Tombstone, Volcano after Dante's Peak, etc.

It would be a marketing nightmare and in the end not promise as large box office returns. And adaptation by singular stories does not equate to more creativity. And I know the entire idea of IP is being voided by this concept, not to mention any franchise with a strong sense of continuity and fanfare.


Also, it is not similar to the Spidey comics having multiple titles at Marvel, because they were all one serialized monthly fiction in the same continuity owned by the same com pany. Besides if you look back Spidey comics def. went downhill after it was more than two titles a month and whenever it is at 3 or more the stories usually suck.

Just saying.

 

[DACrowe]

Dudes and dudettes....Arad demanded Raimi put Venom in the movie...Raimi ufcked it up, so as soon as the movie came out, Arad kept saying, "There will be a Venom movie"...which obviously, the poor way Raimi dealt with the Venom character, I bet that would piss Arad off...so why wouldn't he say something to the line of wanting a new director and new direction...isn't Avi Arad like the head honcho anyways?

Sure money speaks louder, but Arad's the boss, and if I was in Avi's shoes, I would find a new director just because Raimi took the advice, but screwed it up BIG TIME.

Arad is a sleazy businessman. A BUSINESSMAN. He gave the mandate (as RAimi later admitted it was) because he knew the character's popularity and it would be a marketing dream. And it was, it raked in the money big time and broke box office records.

Arad is the man who signed off on the butchered DD, Elektra, X3, FF, Punisher, Ghost Rider and FF2. He calls Ghost Rider a good movie.

For the record I liked SM3 and think that while Venom was underdeveloped, Arad would disagree. To a paraphrase a quote from the DVD: "Sam needed to make Venom an interesting character like our other villains. Venom was interesting, but Eddie Brock was not. He was a boring character with a weak origin" and COMPLETELY supported the changes to the character.

So cry all you want, the only thing in his head when he name drops Venom (and is the only one who does so) is dollar signs.

 

[omid17]

Arad is a sleazy businessman. A BUSINESSMAN. He gave the mandate (as RAimi later admitted it was) because he knew the character's popularity and it would be a marketing dream. And it was, it raked in the money big time and broke box office records.

Arad is the man who signed off on the butchered DD, Elektra, X3, FF, Punisher, Ghost Rider and FF2. He calls Ghost Rider a good movie.

For the record I liked SM3 and think that while Venom was underdeveloped, Arad would disagree. To a paraphrase a quote from the DVD: "Sam needed to make Venom an interesting character like our other villains. Venom was interesting, but Eddie Brock was not. He was a boring character with a weak origin" and COMPLETELY supported the changes to the character.

So cry all you want, the only thing in his head when he name drops Venom (and is the only one who does so) is dollar signs.

well said, and you brought up some good points too about Avi

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. Raimi's movies didn't have a supporting cast? Say what, again?

 

[omid17]

P.S. Raimi's movies didn't have a supporting cast? Say what, again?

supporting cast was never a problem imo, but i did agree on most of the stuff Sly said, and getting a new cast still wouldn't bother me at all

 

[ANTOINE X]

Trust me, there's nothing for Sony to gain (money-wise) by sharing Spider-Man with other studios. Thus, is why it will never happen.

Probably. I guess Marvel will have to wait then. its funny because the same way stanley got f*** with Marvel now its Marvel turn to be owned like a B**** by Sony.

 

[Frodo]

These 3 next movies should be a new take on Spider-Man with a director that can really show us what Spider-Man can do on screen, and a Peter Parker character that is full of life with an actual supporting cast. And villains that are actually 100% evil and the audience can root against them completely, and enough of that every villain must be connected to Peter personally bull. As long as Raimi is director, I fear we may never see any of the above.

Raimi and the cast have done a good job, it's time for them to step down, and let a different director take the helm.

I agree . I think Raimi and Co are burnt out on the product and it's time to bring a fresh par of eyes and a new vision . It looks like that what they're doing by having 4 and 5 connected storywise . You need to have a director who isn't biased for one era or one take on Spidey.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Really? Really? REA-LLY?!

I'm just saing besides going against the premise of licensing rights (which is Marvel's biggest moneymaking venture currently) or copyright laws, there is such a thing as market saturation. And studios generally do not want to make movies of the same thing in close period, it is just bad business. Ask Sony when they tried to make a Bond movie with an aged Sean Connery and ran it against EON, or Wyatt Earp being released after Tombstone, Volcano after Dante's Peak, etc.

It would be a marketing nightmare and in the end not promise as large box office returns. And adaptation by singular stories does not equate to more creativity. And I know the entire idea of IP is being voided by this concept, not to mention any franchise with a strong sense of continuity and fanfare.


Also, it is not similar to the Spidey comics having multiple titles at Marvel, because they were all one serialized monthly fiction in the same continuity owned by the same com pany. Besides if you look back Spidey comics def. went downhill after it was more than two titles a month and whenever it is at 3 or more the stories usually suck.

Just saying.

I think its possible....Movie buiness are now like any other buiness. You have to diversify ' with in your product'. The same way we have different type of Honda civic not just one or even better why is L A have 2 basketball team instead of 1? Because the interest for basket ball in that city is huge! So it is for spider-man, the audience for spider-man is so huge you can have at least 2 type of movies: spider-man hardcore for the fan and the regular one like sony's spider-man.

 

[Visionary]

Of course you can have 2 type of movies 3 or 4 if you want, but you're NOT getting Sony to share. All Spidey films will be developed by Sony. Unless Marvel takes them to court and try to break the contract, which wouldn't work, and would only make other studios not want to work with Marvel.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Of course you can have 2 type of movies 3 or 4 if you want, but you're NOT getting Sony to share. All Spidey films will be developed by Sony. Unless Marvel takes them to court and try to break the contract, which wouldn't work, and would only make other studios not want to work with Marvel.

Than I think Sony could do 2 kind of spider-man movie for 2 different audience like the LA lakers & and the LA clipers. 20 years ago it wouldn't be realistic. But today almost everybody goes to the theater, so the audience is huge and I think to try every 3 years to make one big blockbuster movie that will satisfy all type of age & sexe is old school! Multiple movies for different audience is the solution. There's more money to make.