Homecoming The Amazing Spider-Man 3 General Discussion - Part 9

[spider-neil]

The franchise, and Garfield's interpretation, are at best lukewarm liked, which is a weak state of affairs for a once thriving icon like Spider-Man in the movies which were loved by audiences and fans alike back in the Raimi days.



Yes the Spider-Man movies can recover if they get them away from Sony, Arad, Webb and Co. Preferably send them to Marvel because Sony has not made a great Spider-Man movie in 10 years.

If people are blinded by the Marvel hype, what does that say about those who think there's hope for the TASM universe after two lackluster movies? Marvel at least have the capacity to make more good movies than bad, whereas Sony has only been able to do two out of 5 good Spidey movies, and the last one was a decade ago.

Some TASM fans have got stars in their eyes thinking the franchise has just hit a little bump in the road, especially when we now know the desperate situation that Sony are in (as if those awful spin off ideas were not a clue as to how desperate they were).

I absolutely want to see the likes of Arad and Pascal gone but beyond that I just want to see a quality director get his hands on Spider-Man. I want to see Spider-Man with sophisticated story telling, complex characters (especially the villains) and nuanced performances. I've seen Marvel deliver that TWICE in TEN MOVIES. Why does Spider-Man have to go to Marvel for that to happen and if Spider-Man does go to Marvel it is far more likely I will see a laugh fest than the sophisticated writing that I want to see.

 

[chamber-music]

Thor: The Dark World made less than TASM2 and the Incredible Hulk scared Marvel off Hulk solo films for the time being. I'm a Marvel fan but let's not pretend Marvel everything they touch turns to gold because their last few films created a hot streak.

Raimi had the benefit of creating the first big budget Spider-Man movies when the Marvel superhero film buzz first started at the turn of the century.

Circumstances and audiences expectations have changed.

We are currently on a second cycle on Spider-Man movies with about two or three superhero movies are being released each summer. We have had a something like twenty superhero films since Raimi's first Spider-Man film came out so of course Spider-Man films aren't going to make as big a splash now as they did back then unless they are big game changers which neither of Webb's films have been.

 

[Erzengel]

The franchise should be doing better, no question, 'in trouble' is an exaggeration.
The movie did decent numbers, it was SONY's problem they spend so much on the budget and marketing.

Numbers can be argued. TASM2 just got knocked out of the Domestic Top 10.

TASM2 will drop to 8 eventually behind Hunger Games and the Hobbit.

Regardless, the number 1 WW movie is TF4, which is THE worst movie I've watched this year, so the adage that money = quality or popularity doesn't always account for taste.

 

[spider-neil]

Marvel is where Spider-Man should be now because they would do him justice. Marvel is thriving and Sony is flailing.

Give all the movies that don't a profit to Marvel.

 

[Nemeres]

It makes a good amount of sense to have Parker be cocky - not arrogant or a *****e, but cocky, confident - after he's been Spider-Man for a while. He is coolness incarnate and he knows it, why on Earth would he not show it?

 

[spider-neil]

Thor: The Dark World made less than TASM2 and the Incredible Hulk scared Marvel off Hulk solo films for the time being. I'm a Marvel fan but let's not pretend Marvel everything they touch turns to gold because their last few films created a hot streak.

Raimi had the benefit of creating the first big budget Spider-Man movies when the Marvel superhero film buzz first started at the turn of the century.

Circumstances and audiences expectations have changed.

We are currently on a second cycle on Spider-Man movies with about two or three superhero movies are being released each summer. We have had a something like twenty superhero films since Raimi's first Spider-Man film came out so of course Spider-Man films aren't going to make as big a splash now as they did back then unless they are big game changers which neither of Webb's films have been.

Well said, c-m.

 

[spider-neil]

Regardless, the number 1 WW movie is TF4, which is THE worst movie I've watched this year, so the adage that money = quality or popularity doesn't always account for taste.

Well, quite.

 

[The Joker]

I absolutely want to see the likes of Arad and Pascal gone but beyond that I just want to see a quality director get his hands on Spider-Man. I want to see Spider-Man with sophisticated story telling, complex characters (especially the villains) and nuanced performances.

Snap. But we know Pascal and Arad aren't going away from Sony, so given Sony's bad financial situation the best solution is to send Spidey to Marvel.

I've seen Marvel deliver that TWICE in TEN MOVIES. Why does Spider-Man have to go to Marvel for that to happen and if Spider-Man does go to Marvel it is far more likely I will see a laugh fest than the sophisticated writing that I want to see.

Love or hate the Marvel movies, and I'm not saying they're all perfect, or every single one has been a winner (Hulk, Thor 2), but the good they have delivered far outweighs the bad. They have proven themselves more than capable of delivering the goods.

Cannot say the same for Sony and Spider-Man. I think the main reason we got two good Spidey movies out of them at all is because Raimi was left alone for the most part by them in the first two movies.

Marc Webb has been a studio controlled puppet from the get-go. I reckon that's why they hired him. A newbie with no clout who won't stand up to them and basically be a yes man.

 

[Erzengel]

Thor: The Dark World made less than TASM2 and the Incredible Hulk scared Marvel off Hulk solo films for the time being. I'm a Marvel fan but let's not pretend Marvel everything they touch turns to gold because their last few films created a hot streak.

Raimi had the benefit of creating the first big budget Spider-Man movies when the Marvel superhero film buzz first started at the turn of the century.

Circumstances and audiences expectations have changed.

We are currently on a second cycle on Spider-Man movies with about two or three superhero movies are being released each summer. We have had a something like twenty superhero films since Raimi's first Spider-Man film came out so of course Spider-Man films aren't going to make as big a splash now as they did back then unless they are big game changers which neither of Webb's films have been.

I still think the closest metaphor to the MCU is Pixar.

You have their top shelf movies, TWS, GOTG, TA and IM.

You've good ones, C:TFA, T and IM3.

Then you have T: DW, IM2 and TIH where the general consensus is that they border average at worst. None of the Marvel films as of yet have been rated Rotten.

 

[OriginalMiles]

Same old arguments, huh?

 

[The Joker]

I still think the closest metaphor to the MCU is Pixar.

You have their top shelf movies, TWS, GOTG, TA and IM.

You've good ones, C:TFA, T and IM3.

Then you have T: DW, IM2 and TIH where the general consensus is that they border average at worst. None of the Marvel films as of yet have been rated Rotten.

Exactly. It shows the difference between Marvel and Sony. At worst with Marvel they have been average and never sunk into the rotten zone critically. Or come out of it in such a financial bind. The Spider-Man franchise hit an all time new low with TASM 2. Quality wise and reaction wise.

 

[spider-neil]

For me, this is the bottom line, I want;

1. A movie that is self contained.
Enough of set up, I'm sick of that now.

2. Sophisticated story telling.
I want a serious and complex movie that 'happens' to star Spider-Man.

3. Complex characters.
I want a character driven movie with characters that move scene to scene based on their actions and the actions of others rather than because the PLOT tells them to be in a location.

That's what I want and I don't give a **** if Sony, Marvel or anyone else delivers that. What I will say is, look at Marvel's track record and how often they have delivered the above;
IM - yes
TIH - no
Thor - no
CA - no
IM2 - no
Avengers - no
IM3 - no
Thor 2 - no
WS - yes
GotG - no

Basically, from Marvel I am far more likely to see a fun, throwaway, popcorn movie than a nuanced movie with sophisticated story telling.
I think I am far more likely to get what I want if Spider-Man stays where he is and an A list director is hired and the current producers are sacked.

Spider-Man interacting with Iron Man would be cool, Spider-Man that is hailed in the same breath as the Dark Knight is far better, at least for me.

 

[Mirals]

Again yes, definitely. You cannot argue because you know you do not have an argument to make. All you can say is make personal insult remarks at me. I am not just a guy who fell in love with Raimi's Spider-Man and reject everything else. I don't just love Raimi movies. I love the comics, Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, 90's Spider-Man cartoon too. I hate USM cartoon and ASM movies.

So do not try to make up things about me because you have no good arguments against my opinions.

Oh come on you're a big guy Doc! I did not "insult" you .
Maybe I'm rude, yes. But It's because you're narrow minded! Yes!
Look, you still didn't explained the "hipster acting" thing ... I mean, I'm very curious to know what it is. Explain us. No, seriously, I'm just pointing out the weaknesses of your arguments.
"You cannot argue because you know you do not have an argument to make." "See that is you just making insults up about me because you are annoyed at me because my opinion was valid and you couldn't argue it."

... Really, do I really need to argue?? On the hipster acting thing? The skateboard? Andrew Garfield? The teenage vibe?

(And yes, I'm so sorry the be rude at you but your posts are kinda annoying at times. )

I don't just love Raimi movies. I love the comics, Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, 90's Spider-Man cartoon too. I hate USM cartoon and ASM movies.
I liked Raimi movies too(well just Spider-Man 1), I read the comics too(really like what Dan Slott is doing with Spidey ), Really enjoyed SSM cartoon, 90's SM cartoon too!
Yeah agreed with you on USM cartoon.

So do not try to make up things about me because you have no good arguments against my opinions.
Wait, so "I don't just love Raimi movies. I love the comics, Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, 90's Spider-Man cartoon too. I hate USM cartoon and ASM movies." was your argument ? ...
I subtly try to highlight the weak points of your argument and you keep ignoring them. Oh well.

 

[OriginalMiles]

Guys... what matters more to you - comic accuracy or a genuinely good film?

 

[Erzengel]

I can overlook a lot of things for a genuinely good film.

 

[spider-neil]

Also worth nothing that outside of the Lee/Ditko run, for me, Spectacular Spider-Man was 'THE' best interpretation of Spider-Man in any medium. Who made that animated series? Sony.

I wont mention who is making the current animated abomination that is USM.

 

[Erzengel]

For me, this is the bottom line, I want;

1. A movie that is self contained.
Enough of set up, I'm sick of that now.

2. Sophisticated story telling.
I want a serious and complex movie that 'happens' to star Spider-Man.

3. Complex characters.
I want a character driven movie with characters that move scene to scene based on their actions and the actions of others rather than because the PLOT tells them to be in a location.

That's what I want and I don't give a **** if Sony, Marvel or anyone else delivers that. What I will say is, look at Marvel's track record and how often they have delivered the above;
IM - yes
TIH - no
Thor - no
CA - no
IM2 - no
Avengers - no
IM3 - no
Thor 2 - no
WS - yes
GotG - no

Basically, from Marvel I am far more likely to see a fun, throwaway, popcorn movie than a nuanced movie with sophisticated story telling.
I think I am far more likely to get what I want if Spider-Man stays where he is and an A list director is hired and the current producers are sacked.

Spider-Man interacting with Iron Man would be cool, Spider-Man that is hailed in the same breath as the Dark Knight is far better, at least for me.

Do you think that TASM series were sophisticated movies with complex characters?

 

[TheWallCrawler]

For me, this is the bottom line, I want;

1. A movie that is self contained.
Enough of set up, I'm sick of that now.

2. Sophisticated story telling.
I want a serious and complex movie that 'happens' to star Spider-Man.

3. Complex characters.
I want a character driven movie with characters that move scene to scene based on their actions and the actions of others rather than because the PLOT tells them to be in a location.

That's what I want and I don't give a **** if Sony, Marvel or anyone else delivers that. What I will say is, look at Marvel's track record and how often they have delivered the above;
IM - yes
TIH - no
Thor - no
CA - no
IM2 - no
Avengers - no
IM3 - no
Thor 2 - no
WS - yes
GotG - no

Basically, from Marvel I am far more likely to see a fun, throwaway, popcorn movie than a nuanced movie with sophisticated story telling.
I think I am far more likely to get what I want if Spider-Man stays where he is and an A list director is hired and the current producers are sacked.

Spider-Man interacting with Iron Man would be cool, Spider-Man that is hailed in the same breath as the Dark Knight is far better, at least for me.

wait what? you put no's on GotG and the friggin Avengers? O_O I guess it's just down to opinion, but why don't you like them?

 

[spider-neil]

Guys... what matters more to you - comic accuracy or a genuinely good film?

The latter, without a moments hesitation.

 

[The Joker]

Also worth nothing that outside of the Lee/Ditko run, for me, Spectacular Spider-Man was 'THE' best interpretation of Spider-Man in any medium. Who made that animated series? Sony.

Greg Weissman was the real talent behind that show. Sony just funded it. But of course they had to cancel it after two seasons. Typical of Sony. Spoil a good thing after only two rounds. Just like with the movies.

 

[Mirals]

Guys... what matters more to you - comic accuracy or a genuinely good film?

*Tough question ...
I will say a genuinely good film (with some comic accuracy). But first a genuinely good film. That's what the Nolan Batmans are.

 

[spider-neil]

wait what? you put no's on GotG and the friggin Avengers? O_O I guess it's just down to opinion, but why don't you like them?

I like the movies fine I put 'nos' because the characters in Avengers aren't complex (especially the army Loki commands) and Avengers is 100% plot driven.

Guardians doesn't have complex characters. You can argue Star Lord is character driven but no one else is.

I said 'sophisticated' story telling. Only Iron Man and WS deliver that.

 

[spider-neil]

Greg Weissman was the real talent behind that show. Sony just funded it. But of course they had to cancel it after two seasons. Typical of Sony. Spoil a good thing after only two rounds. Just like with the movies.

Sony no longer had the rights to make animated TV shows.

 

[spider-neil]

*Tough question ...
I will say a genuinely good film (with some comic accuracy). But first a genuinely good film. That's what the Nolan Batmans are.

Batman '89 is more comic accurate but TDK **** all over it despite the liberties Nolan takes with the titular character.

 

[Mirals]

Batman '89 is more comic accurate but TDK **** all over it despite the liberties Nolan takes with the titular character.

I don't know Batman as much as I know Spidey. Really? How?

I guess we can agree that a genuinely good film > 100% comic accurate film.