Homecoming "Spider-Man Summit" Thread

[Moridin]

Marvel have been able to gamble on lessor known directors with varying results. This being a second reboot, the time for gambling is over and the movie needs experienced hands. Sony went with a relative novice and walked all over him. Spider-Man needs an experienced director with a proven track record to put their stamp on the franchise.

You don't have to be an A-list director to be experienced.

Is Andrew Garfield really done? Geez, just move on with TASM3 and bring back Andrew Garfield and just deliver a good film.

TASM3 would likely make even less than TASM2 at the box office, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort unless they can drastically reduce the budget.

The series has many fans. There's no denying that

Not enough to matter (i.e. not enough to reverse declining box office takes)

I would kind of like to see that because Garfield desevers to be sm one last time and hopefully it would turn out good and people that say that the GA doesn't care about Garfield lol most people think Garfield is a lot better then tobey but that the movies just don't have good villains righting and pasting.

In the USA, something like 60% of the people that saw Spider-Man 1 didn't even see TASM2.

Marvel doesn't rush movies?

*cough IM2 *cough*

IM2 still had 2 years of development. A Marvel/Sony Spider-Man is not happening in 2016.

 

[degraves93]

Maybe this is a bit foolish of me, but I don't really care. Cabin in the Woods was enough for me to be 100% behind Goddard's involvement in MCU Spidey. Plenty of big-name, über-acclaimed directors have made crap films (Coppola with Godfather III being an example), so how well-known the director is really doesn't mean much to me.

 

[spiderman2]

I am not the biggest MCU fan. I thought iron man 1 was ok to bad the most overrated CBM ever and not even close. Iron man 2 ok and iron man 3 kind of good. Cap 1 ok, cap 2 great. Thor 1 and 2 ok. Avengers while good is overrated. But with that said marvel needs to get Spiderman because even though I though asm1 was kind of good and asm2 amazing form the sound of things Garfield is gone no matter what and sony sounds like they don't know what to do. If sony reboots that is going to turn people away even more. If they make asm3 with how asm2 did an they do it with out Garfield that is going to also turn people away. ASM2 made about 700 million. If they make asm3 I could see it making only 600-650 million. If they do it with out Garfield I could see it being like 550-600. If they reboot it I again I could see it being even worse like 500-550.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Maybe this is a bit foolish of me, but I don't really care. Cabin in the Woods was enough for me to be 100% behind Goddard's involvement in MCU Spidey. Plenty of big-name, über-acclaimed directors have made crap films (Coppola with Godfather III being an example), so how well-known the director is really doesn't mean much to me.

Would love for Drew G to land this.

 

[degraves93]

Would love for Drew G to land this.

The fact that he's relatively inexperienced has people paranoid that Sony would try to bully him like they did with Webb. IIRC, Feige gives as much creative control to the writers and directors as is feasible, so I wouldn't be too worried. Plus, they bullied Raimi out of the franchise, and he's far from an inexperienced director.

 

[spiderman2]

You don't have to be an A-list director to be experienced.



TASM3 would likely make even less than TASM2 at the box office, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort unless they can drastically reduce the budget.



Not enough to matter (i.e. not enough to reverse declining box office takes)



In the USA, something like 60% of the people that saw Spider-Man 1 didn't even see TASM2.



IM2 still had 2 years of development. A Marvel/Sony Spider-Man is not happening in 2016.

Its not because of Garfield that less people saw asm2 compared to asm1. People where agest a reboot after sm 3 and asm1 didn't changes that mind set has it was consider just slightly good and to much like sm1 with the whole origins thing and then asm2 turned out to be even worse in most people eyes. Garfield had a lot less to work with then tobey ever did. The tobey movies people thought had much better villains, story ect. If you take Garfield but him into sm 1-3 they do even better. You take tobey put him in asm1 and 2 and they do even worse.

 

[Stormz96]

Maybe this is a bit foolish of me, but I don't really care. Cabin in the Woods was enough for me to be 100% behind Goddard's involvement in MCU Spidey. Plenty of big-name, über-acclaimed directors have made crap films (Coppola with Godfather III being an example), so how well-known the director is really doesn't mean much to me.

Goddard's twisted horror sensibilities we saw in Cabin in the Woods are completely in-sync with the villains of spider man. I really hope he's our guy!

 

[degraves93]

Goddard's twisted horror sensibilities we saw in Cabin in the Woods are completely in-sync with the villains of spider man. I really hope he's our guy!

LMFAO cabbing in the woods. TAXI! Glad you caught that autocorrect.

 

[Stormz96]

LMFAO cabbing in the woods. TAXI! Glad you caught that autocorrect.

Cabbing in the Woods: Starring Logan Lerman

 

[degraves93]

Cabbing in the Woods: Starring Logan Lerman

Ah forgot about that scene! So, Sony still has casting and script approval (from what I've read here). Is this worrisome?

 

[spider-neil]

Maybe this is a bit foolish of me, but I don't really care. Cabin in the Woods was enough for me to be 100% behind Goddard's involvement in MCU Spidey. Plenty of big-name, über-acclaimed directors have made crap films (Coppola with Godfather III being an example), so how well-known the director is really doesn't mean much to me.

True, but you are playing the odds that an experienced A list director is more likely to make a quality movie than a relative novice.

 

[spiderman2]

Ah forgot about that scene! So, Sony still has casting and script approval (from what I've read here). Is this worrisome?

casting I don't thing is a problem has there casting in the sm movies have not been a problem. Now script that is a different story lol. I don't see a deal going though with out marvel having creative control.

 

[spider-neil]

Ah forgot about that scene! So, Sony still has casting and script approval (from what I've read here). Is this worrisome?

Script and casting approval;

Marvel - 'What do you think?'

Sony - 'Yeah, go with that'.


Also how I wish there was a secondary studio that gave script approval on TDW

 

[degraves93]

True, but you are playing the odds that an experienced A list director is more likely to make a quality movie than a relative novice.

There's no guarantees is really what I'm saying. Raimi, while not exactly what I'd call A-List, is hyper-acclaimed, but he made SM3, a movie I despise to this day. Webb, a relative novice, made TASM1 and TASM2, movies that, while far from perfect and full of dumb moments, I greatly prefer to Raimi's final installment, if not more than his first two.

 

[Stormz96]

Ah forgot about that scene! So, Sony still has casting and script approval (from what I've read here). Is this worrisome?

Not for me. Sony isn't in the position to turn down a solid script, and their casting for the TASM series was great, pin fact I'd say they're good at casting!

 

[degraves93]

Not for me. Sony isn't in the position to turn down a solid script, and their casting for the TASM series was great, pin fact I'd say they're good at casting!

Sony, while dumb as **** most of the time, has made mostly good casting decisions. The only two choices I haven't liked are Grace as Venom and Franco as Harry. Plus, it isn't like they're the only ones with say in who plays what.

 

[spider-neil]

Sony usually make good casting choices and besides it is casting approval and Marvel absolutely make good casting choices. And Sony aren't going to turn down a great script unless it writes the character of Spider-Man into a corner by that I mean 'I' would turn down a script that has Spider-Man revealing himself to the world. Where do you go from there?

 

[degraves93]

Sony usually make good casting choices and besides it is casting approval and Marvel absolutely make good casting choices. And Sony aren't going to turn down a great script unless it writes the character of Spider-Man into a corner by that I mean 'I' would turn down a script that has Spider-Man revealing himself to the world. Where do you go from there?

Sony is stupid, but they aren't too stupid to recognize the sheer volume of great scripts Marvel churns out regularly. Even lesser films have had great moments.

 

[spiderman2]

Sony, while dumb as **** most of the time, has made mostly good casting decisions. The only two choices I haven't liked are Grace as Venom and Franco as Harry. Plus, it isn't like they're the only ones with say in who plays what.

I agree about venom but I thought franco has harry was good.

 

[degraves93]

I agree about venom but I thought franco has harry was good.

He was good in the first two, but he was borderline comatose in the third.

 

[spiderman2]

He was good in the first two, but he was borderline comatose in the third.

The acting in the 3erd one went down hill. Even tobey was worse in the 3erd one. It was like they wore not interested in the movie or something. Maybe it was because the script was not has good or something.

 

[degraves93]

The acting in the 3erd one went down hill. Even tobey was worse in the 3erd one. It was like they wore not interested in the movie or something. Maybe it was because the script was not has good or something.

Which is weird, because I remember Maguire saying the script for SM3 was his favorite.

 

[spiderman2]

Which is weird, because I remember Maguire saying the script for SM3 was his favorite.

While that is when sony started to interfere. Maybe it was his favorite at 1 point before there where changes to the movie with putting venom in and with taking vulter out ect.

 

[degraves93]

While that is when sony started to interfere. Maybe it was his favorite at 1 point before there where changes to the movie with putting venom in and with taking vulter out ect.

Yeah Sony was at it again. I'm happy we probably won't end up with that again.

 

[Eddie]

I meant that since Marvel won't use the character for a while they could both deal to have Sony finish the ASM trilogy then reboot at Marvel.

From what I've seen though it seems Marvel aren't getting him back 100%. Sony with Feige as producer would handle the solo movies with access to certain MCU characters and Marvel would handle the team movies with Spidey. Whether that deal is the deal or has since been changed or rejected is unknown

Where in the world did you get that from? If the Marvel deal happens, they're using Spider-Man within the next two years in all likelihood. They wanted him for Civil War, and the latest rumors are that Spidey could still cameo or get a credits scene. All signs point to Marvel's Spider-Man showing up annually if the deal happens (the second new Spider-Man is to be released in 2019, meaning the first would be in 2016 or 2017, plus they want him in Civil War and Infinity War). Sony wasn't even planning to release TASM3 until 2018.

Also, hate to break it to you but there's less than a fraction of a percent chance TASM3 happens even without a deal. Ignoring the Marvel stuff, multiple Sony documents reveal they were planning on rebooting on their own if an MCU deal didn't happen. One exec even wanted/wants Ryan Gosling for Spidey.