Homecoming The Amazing Spider-Man 3 General Discussion - Part 2

[GoldGoblin]

Maybe it's Kraven in the spidey suit taking on The Sinister Six if they don't use spidey.

 

[spider-neil]

The reason I don't think Spidey will appear in the movie (end credits scene aside) is because they have flesh out six characters and give six characters motivation and dimension. There isn't (make that shouldn't) be much room left over for Spidey.

 

[Frodo]

Trust me, I genuinely think you have great ideas; the only part where we're disagreeing is whether or not it could be the established in this series.

There's certainly a worldwide audience for Spider-Man. I have family in the Middle East, U.K., U.A.E, and Europe, and all of them have at least one person who is a Spidey fan. In fact, my family in Pakistan has Spidey posters on their walls. Japan is also another country where I can see a Spider-Man movie being filmed, as they too have a strong demand for him. There's a reason why the box office number for the international audience was around $700M.

But in regards to this series, what about May? What about Captain Stacy telling Peter, "This city needs you"? His death wasn't just significant for Peter and Gwen's relationship, but the fall of NYPD's leadership meant that Peter/Spider-Man is the new law (at least that's what I took from it). What about Peter returning at the end of TASM2 and establishing himself as NYC's hero? Also, Webb and company showing NYC without Spider-Man would absolutely mean squat if they went international in this series. But on the other hand, I guess you could look at it as foreshadowing if they went that route

This series has embedded a relationship between Spidey and NYC too firmly already. If we go international for a reboot, I'll shut up and you can take my money.

I can see your point about Spiderman and NYC , but the character I think is so much greater than the city he from or normally protects. He's a hero no matter where he is as we've seen in other iterations . He symbolizes something greater than just his own interests or even his own world of queens NY. I think that Peter finding out there's more to being a hero than just protecting his own neighborhood or fighting bad guys would be a great lesson for this Peter learn. While the character is rooted in NYC , I don't think its so rooted that this version of the character couldn't have an adventure outside of the states. If we were talking about the Raimi films I think I would agree that it may be hard to tell the type of story Family business tells.

While I respect what May and Stacy said in the films, Webb and the filmmakers haven't really placed all that much emphasis on Spiderman being a hero for New York or being a champion for the city in the way Nolan emphasized Batman as a hero working for Gotham. We may have had a few lines and we had the crane sequence to be sure but it really hasn't been a focus. If anything, I think that's been one of the weaknesses of the new films. We all know he sort of represents the New Yorker from the mythology , but I don't feel at least these films have really hit that point home aside from some lines of dialog and the crane sequence and the Time Square fight. Its been kinda surface level references as opposed to the character articulating that he exists because the people of New York need him.

I think the recent spate of Superhero films have shown that the films that survive and transcend the genre are the ones in which the filmmakers are willing to go out of their safety zones of the characters common locations, time periods, subjects, etc and tell stories which nevertheless reveal a truth about the character or characters that we all recognizes. I think I would agree that he couldn't do the globe trotting thing for every new film , but as a one shot thing as in the Family Business novel did, there really isn't anything I would see that would make it inconsistent for this version of the franchise.

Now of course whatever ASM 3 is gonna be is basically dependent upon S6 anyway so what ever idea I have is fan fiction, and the Family Business story is a one shot from a different continuity of a comic book. But as far as the international aspect I do think it could work and audiences would be willing to accept it, assuming the story is good. I don't think Sony would do because of how much it would cost to do international shoots and because I think they're pretty much stuck trying to recapture what Raimi had, so they're gonna be less willing to leave that formula and take a chance for one film .

 

[spider-neil]

I can see your point about Spiderman and NYC , but the character I think is so much greater than the city he from or normally protects. He's a hero no matter where he is as we've seen in other iterations . He symbolizes something greater than just his own interests or even his own world of queens NY. I think that Peter finding out there's more to being a hero than just protecting his own neighborhood or fighting bad guys would be a great lesson for this Peter learn. While the character is rooted in NYC , I don't think its so rooted that this version of the character couldn't have an adventure outside of the states. If we were talking about the Raimi films I think I would agree that it may be hard to tell the type of story Family business tells.

While I respect what May and Stacy said in the films, Webb and the filmmakers haven't really placed all that much emphasis on Spiderman being a hero for New York or being a champion for the city in the way Nolan emphasized Batman as a hero working for Gotham. We may have had a few lines and we had the crane sequence to be sure but it really hasn't been a focus. If anything, I think that's been one of the weaknesses of the new films. We all know he sort of represents the New Yorker from the mythology , but I don't feel at least these films have really hit that point home aside from some lines of dialog and the crane sequence and the Time Square fight. Its been kinda surface level references as opposed to the character articulating that he exists because the people of New York need him.

I think the recent spate of Superhero films have shown that the films that survive and transcend the genre are the ones in which the filmmakers are willing to go out of their safety zones of the characters common locations, time periods, subjects, etc and tell stories which nevertheless reveal a truth about the character or characters that we all recognizes. I think I would agree that he couldn't do the globe trotting thing for every new film , but as a one shot thing as in the Family Business novel did, there really isn't anything I would see that would make it inconsistent for this version of the franchise.

Now of course whatever ASM 3 is gonna be is basically dependent upon S6 anyway so what ever idea I have is fan fiction, and the Family Business story is a one shot from a different continuity of a comic book. But as far as the international aspect I do think it could work and audiences would be willing to accept it, assuming the story is good. I don't think Sony would do because of how much it would cost to do international shoots and because I think they're pretty much stuck trying to recapture what Raimi had, so they're gonna be less willing to leave that formula and take a chance for one film .

The international shots would probably end up costing less than extended shooting in NY.

 

[icehero]

I can't see how Andrew Garfield will stay looking like a teen forever. 4 years before the next one is just a hell of a wait.
Can't they just forget about Venom and Sinister 6?

 

[Octoberist]

I can't see how Andrew Garfield will stay looking like a teen forever. 4 years before the next one is just a hell of a wait.
Can't they just forget about Venom and Sinister 6?

To be honest, he looks great for his age but he's starting to look like he's in his mid to late 20's at this point, not 18-21.

 

[danistheman12]

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/08/tiff-2014-andrew-garfield-excited-about-drew-goddard-doing-sinister-six

New interview with andrew garfield about the sinister six film.

But how do you have Spider-Man villains without Spider-Man?

“I know more than I’m allowed to say right now,” Garfield told us.

“I can say I’m really excited about Drew Goddard, who’s going to be writing and directing The Sinister Six movie. And whether I’m involved in that or not is kind of immaterial.”

 

[Spider-Fan83]

The reason I don't think Spidey will appear in the movie (end credits scene aside) is because they have flesh out six characters and give six characters motivation and dimension. There isn't (make that shouldn't) be much room left over for Spidey.

but, wouldn't spidey play a key role in the motivation of the characters?

isn't the point of the S6 is that each of these characters have some type of personal vendetta against spidey... without that their just a bunch of random henchmen for hire

I can't see how Andrew Garfield will stay looking like a teen forever. 4 years before the next one is just a hell of a wait.
Can't they just forget about Venom and Sinister 6?

who says Peter has to be a teen forever? we already saw him graduate high school in the last movie... I don't think the next movie will pick up right after the last, so, the next time we see him he should be well into his collage years

I don't mind seeing an grown Peter as the movies go on

 

[harryoscop]

I just don't get what their overall goal is. The Sinister Six are not The Avengers, their SOLE PURPOSE is to kill Spider-Man. That's it! Without him, without some kind of conflict, what are they trying to overcome? And don't tell me that the conflict is each other because the only way I see that ending is all of them grouped in a room together and hashing out their feelings and that's [frick]ing lame.

Why do they want to copy Marvel so bad?!?

 

[spider-neil]

I just don't get what their overall goal is. The Sinister Six are not The Avengers, their SOLE PURPOSE is to kill Spider-Man. That's it! Without him, without some kind of conflict, what are they trying to overcome? And don't tell me that the conflict is each other because the only way I see that ending is all of them grouped in a room together and hashing out their feelings and that's [frick]ing lame.

Why do they want to copy Marvel so bad?!?

There are lots of motivations that don't involve Spider-Man.
Power.
Fame.
World domination,
Adulation.

 

[spiderman2]

There are lots of motivations that don't involve Spider-Man.
Power.
Fame.
World domination,
Adulation.

Maybe but there still has to be some reason they don't like spider man like he stops them form doing something or something.

 

[spiderral]

The only way I see the S6 film working is if there is conflict in the group and they fight each other, being manipulated by Fiers or Harry into working together for the sole purpose of killing Spider-Man/Peter Parker in the end.

They could also fight against another Spider-Man character/villain; Black Cat, Lizard or even Venom (<< which would be interesting but they'd have to introduce Brock, the symbiote and have symbiote Spidey too so...).

What if they introduce Ben Reilly in this one...? He could be the Spider-Man that they end up going against, idk. I'd just really like to see them do something exciting and fresh with this, especially with it not being your standard Spider-Man movie.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

what if its like a mob war thing? like they get together to take out the other crime families of NY to take over all the organized crime of the city

they probably can't use Kingpin, but I wouldn't mind seeing Silvermane, Hammer Head, the Big man, or Tombstone

I know introducing the 6 alone already seems like a full cast, let alone introducing more characters, but, still

 

[GuestStar2004]

There is many things they could do with the sinister 6, it doesn't have to be light hearted and make them look like heroes to tell a story.

An option I personally wouldn't be surprised about is if they become the sinister 6 near the end of the movie (but don't quote me on that) and a lot of the film is conflict and certain characters with their own agenda and whatever else, I mean obviously Sony would still call it the sinister 6 even if they only become it at the end.

I think many are abit closed minded about it because unless it's got spider-man then what else is there, but that's the point of story telling isn't it? and even villains have their own story's

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Spider-Knight shared a link about what Andrew thinks over the movie reception.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ng-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html

Spoiler

Speaking of Spider-Man, I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, but I wasn’t very high on the recent sequel. It seemed crammed with characters, and like a setup film for The Sinister Six spin-off. I’m curious what your feelings are about it.

It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, “No, that doesn’t work,” then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

But I’ll tell you this: Talking about the experience as opposed to how it was perceived, I got to work in deep scenes that you don’t usually see in comic book movies, and I got to explore this orphan boy—a lot of which was taken out, and which we’d explored more. It’s interesting to do a postmortem. I’m proud of a lot of it and had a good time, and was a bit taken aback by the response.

How so?

It’s a discernment thing. What are the people actually saying? What’s underneath the complaint, and how can we learn from that? We can’t go, “Oh God, we ****ed up because all these people are saying all these things. It’s ****.” We have to ask ourselves, “What do we believe to be true?” Is it that this is the fifth Spider-Man movie in however many years, and there’s a bit of fatigue? Is it that there was too much in there? Is it that it didn’t link? If it linked seamlessly, would that be too much? Were there tonal issues? What is it? I think all that is valuable. Constructive criticism is different from people just being *****, and I love constructive criticism. Hopefully, we can get underneath what the criticism was about, and if we missed anything.

 

[SpideyK]

Interesting.

I'd definitely say there's people bashing the film just to bash it. I'm glad he's open to constructive criticism.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Spider-Knight shared a link about what Andrew thinks over the movie reception.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ng-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html

Spoiler

Speaking of Spider-Man, I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, but I wasn’t very high on the recent sequel. It seemed crammed with characters, and like a setup film for The Sinister Six spin-off. I’m curious what your feelings are about it.

It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, “No, that doesn’t work,” then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

But I’ll tell you this: Talking about the experience as opposed to how it was perceived, I got to work in deep scenes that you don’t usually see in comic book movies, and I got to explore this orphan boy—a lot of which was taken out, and which we’d explored more. It’s interesting to do a postmortem. I’m proud of a lot of it and had a good time, and was a bit taken aback by the response.

How so?

It’s a discernment thing. What are the people actually saying? What’s underneath the complaint, and how can we learn from that? We can’t go, “Oh God, we ****ed up because all these people are saying all these things. It’s ****.” We have to ask ourselves, “What do we believe to be true?” Is it that this is the fifth Spider-Man movie in however many years, and there’s a bit of fatigue? Is it that there was too much in there? Is it that it didn’t link? If it linked seamlessly, would that be too much? Were there tonal issues? What is it? I think all that is valuable. Constructive criticism is different from people just being *****, and I love constructive criticism. Hopefully, we can get underneath what the criticism was about, and if we missed anything.

Glad that he's sticking to his guns about his feelings about the film (he did awesome and should be proud) but it seems he's earnest in the desire to learn and grow with the next film. Good for him. He makes a great point about constructive criticism versus people being *****.

 

[Oscorp]

Spider-Knight shared a link about what Andrew thinks over the movie reception.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ng-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html

Spoiler

Speaking of Spider-Man, I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, but I wasn’t very high on the recent sequel. It seemed crammed with characters, and like a setup film for The Sinister Six spin-off. I’m curious what your feelings are about it.

It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, “No, that doesn’t work,” then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

But I’ll tell you this: Talking about the experience as opposed to how it was perceived, I got to work in deep scenes that you don’t usually see in comic book movies, and I got to explore this orphan boy—a lot of which was taken out, and which we’d explored more. It’s interesting to do a postmortem. I’m proud of a lot of it and had a good time, and was a bit taken aback by the response.

How so?

It’s a discernment thing. What are the people actually saying? What’s underneath the complaint, and how can we learn from that? We can’t go, “Oh God, we ****ed up because all these people are saying all these things. It’s ****.” We have to ask ourselves, “What do we believe to be true?” Is it that this is the fifth Spider-Man movie in however many years, and there’s a bit of fatigue? Is it that there was too much in there? Is it that it didn’t link? If it linked seamlessly, would that be too much? Were there tonal issues? What is it? I think all that is valuable. Constructive criticism is different from people just being *****, and I love constructive criticism. Hopefully, we can get underneath what the criticism was about, and if we missed anything.

Once again Andrew proves how awesome he is! He seems so true and honest. I think this also proves once again that the producers might be the biggest problem here (not saying Webb isn't to blame, though).

And wow, Andrew is SO true in those last sentences. Posters on boards such as these in general need to learn how to give constructive criticism (which also opens up for more interesting discussions) instead of simply bashing with no discussion value.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Once you start removing things and saying, &#8220;No, that doesn&#8217;t work,&#8221; then the thread is broken, and it&#8217;s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they&#8217;re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people

that pretty much says what alot of us suspected really

 

[AF3619]

that pretty much says what alot of us suspected really

yes, he pretty much said what happened here , Sony edited many important things out not knowing what they meant to the story, maybe...based on TeeKay´s original review and visible changes

i´m not saying is Sony´s complete fault some other things also hurt the movie but from what we´ve seen it seems that the studio changed a lot of things that coud´ve fixed some problems with the final version

 

[HanShotFirst]

Spider-Knight shared a link about what Andrew thinks over the movie reception.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ng-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html

Spoiler

Speaking of Spider-Man, I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, but I wasn’t very high on the recent sequel. It seemed crammed with characters, and like a setup film for The Sinister Six spin-off. I’m curious what your feelings are about it.

It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, “No, that doesn’t work,” then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

But I’ll tell you this: Talking about the experience as opposed to how it was perceived, I got to work in deep scenes that you don’t usually see in comic book movies, and I got to explore this orphan boy—a lot of which was taken out, and which we’d explored more. It’s interesting to do a postmortem. I’m proud of a lot of it and had a good time, and was a bit taken aback by the response.

How so?

It’s a discernment thing. What are the people actually saying? What’s underneath the complaint, and how can we learn from that? We can’t go, “Oh God, we ****ed up because all these people are saying all these things. It’s ****.” We have to ask ourselves, “What do we believe to be true?” Is it that this is the fifth Spider-Man movie in however many years, and there’s a bit of fatigue? Is it that there was too much in there? Is it that it didn’t link? If it linked seamlessly, would that be too much? Were there tonal issues? What is it? I think all that is valuable. Constructive criticism is different from people just being *****, and I love constructive criticism. Hopefully, we can get underneath what the criticism was about, and if we missed anything.

Nice find! Andrew is an awesome Spider-man, but his PP needs to get TASM1 hair back, seriously man...

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Nice find! Andrew is an awesome Spider-man, but his PP needs to get TASM1 hair back, seriously man...

Ah c'mon dude! His new hair was perfect!

 

[OriginalMiles]

^^This Peter

^^ This Spidey

 

[CaptainWagner]

-Personally, I think it's a given that Spider-man will be in S6, after all he is the reason that Harry is bringing the group together. Which would make for intereseting conflict when Harry sees it as something personal and the others just want money.

 

[OriginalMiles]

We don't actually know why Harry is bringing them together... he started forming the group while Spider-Man was absent, so it could be for a different reason.