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

[LizardMan07]

Honestly, this is the only place where I see a large amount of dislike for Garfields Spider-Man. For example, sevenwebheads asked fans to send in small video clips regarding how they think the series should go forward, huge support for Garfield

[YT]http://youtu.be/yso3f3y6pW8[/YT]

A few weeks ago a new petition came through on change.org regarding keeping Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. With over 20,000 signatures it is the biggest Spider-Man related petition on the internet, the second being the TASM2 directors cut petition. 20,000 people saying they want to keep Garfield as Spider-Man, whilst illogical, is a large show of support for his portrayal of Spider-Man.

If you head over to reddit, on either the marvel or Spider-Man subreddit, there is overwhelming support for the TASM series. The movies subreddit generally trends towards the TASM series as well. However it's much more mixed there.

Plus you have the people going all tumblr and Twitter on Sony with the #supportandrew thing.

People like to point towards the poor reviews (even though a majority did enjoy the film, objective fact going off RT) to say that Garfield isn't a popular Spider-Man but the fact of the matter is that the rotten tomatoes score isn't regarding Andrew but the entire movie.

From my experience, Whenever a medium is made available to the general public in which to specifically answer a question as to Andrews portrayal of Spider-Man, Andrew passes with flying colours most of the time.

It seems that people still expect a 60's like Peter Parker or even a early 90's parker but times have changed now and in order to resonate with the general audience as well as comic book fans you need to have a descent balance.

If Sony makes another Spider-Man it has a higher chance of being successful if Andrew is at the helm. Only Marvel stepping in justifies another reboot.

SHH isn't that big, specifically these parts of the forums and we have to realise that opinions vary across the Internet. Only SHH and some parts of /tv/ are overwhelmingly anti Andrew from my experience.

 

[OriginalMiles]

Honestly, I thought Andrew's Peter was a perfect modernized version of the classic 616 Ditko/Lee era Peter.

Some things they just had to change.

 

[spider-neil]

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.

For instance, Lucius making his gadgets. Joker was far more comic accurate in '89 than TDK.

 

[Erzengel]

I'm not going to lose sleep if Garfield is or isn't used in TASM3 or a reboot.

But I do think that SHH at least has it's finger on the pulse on how CBMs are generally received.

I know there are quite a few people who like it here as well as hate it, but I think that the answer is probably in the middle. A somewhat average movie.

 

[SyntaxError]

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.

What do you mean by sophisticated? Plot-driven narratives can be incredibly sophisticated and layered as well. I don't see why there has to be a dichotomy between plot driven and character driven, the best movies have plot and character walking hand in hand.

Most of Marvel's movies feature strong character development which is driven by the plot itself. Spider-Man is a great character but it needs plot developments to create scenario's in which the character can develop.

All I know is that Sony has messed up Spider-Man one to many times, and with Pascal and Arad going nowhere, it's going to remain that way. They have proven themselves incapable of doing any of the 3 things you listed. There is a incredible lack of character development in the ASM movies - everything is a cycle of Peter-Gwen. The storytelling is the exact opposite of sophisticated. It is messy, crowded with too many villains and too many subplots. What makes you think hiring a new director would change things? In the end its the Sony exec's calling the shots.

Marvel has proven time and time again that it can structure narratives in a sophisticated manner. I don't see anything wrong in their use of comedic devices in their movies. Spider-Man is a funny guy, it's part of his 'character' - something you keep ranting on about.

 

[chamber-music]

Garfield and Stone seem to be the most well liked things about the TASM movies I've seen in reviews for the films.

Even Marvel president Alan Fine who didn't like the reboot films liked the chemistry between Garfield and Stone.

Outside of this website the only hate I've seen for Garfield has been from the 'everyone sucks who isn't my pick for Spidey' types and the hardcore Raimi fans angry he isn't still making Spider-Man films.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Fandom is very fickle.

Should MARVEL announce a reboot with a new young/cute actor tomorrow... you'd soon see all those twitter/tumblr followers changing their tune.

 

[spider-neil]

Sack the producers on ASM and I think you will see an immediate upturn in quality. Look at Social Network, Sony are more than capable of producing quality.
I say this because I honestly don't see the Marvel deal happening. We'll see.

 

[GuestStar2004]

i'd certainly say alot of people favour garfield more then just "lukewarm", its just a time so close to tobys peter that there was always gonna be split opinion on the character, just like if toby came back you could expect his character to not quite be accepted the same way he used too

when you have nothing to compare a character too the audience are more likely to accept someone in the role, its one of the reasons why so many people say hugh jackman can't be replaced as wolverine but truth is one day he could be replaced with an actor who could play wolverine even better and there will be happy people who say Wow this is the real wolverine! and there will be others ain't happy because they don't recognise the character anymore or don't think he should be this new version of the character

 

[Mirals]

For instance, Lucius making his gadgets. Joker was far more comic accurate in '89 than TDK.

Interesting... I have not seen '89 Batman film. Thanks

 

[LizardMan07]

Fandom is very fickle.

Should MARVEL announce a reboot with a new young/cute actor tomorrow... you'd soon see all those twitter/tumblr followers changing their tune.

At this moment though, it's not as if Garfield is universally hated or objectively bad is all I'm saying. Can't just dismiss a large amount of peoples opinions because they're fickle. We can only judge what people think now, not predict the future, and as of now, it's easier to find peachy comments about Garfield than not-so-peachy comments

 

[Erzengel]

I'm in a small minority where I'd love to see a X-Men film without Wolverine.

 

[SyntaxError]

I like Garfield as Spider-Man but the advantages of a Marvel reboot far outweigh the benefits of keeping Garfield on the sinking ship that is Sony's ASM. I don't think he is difficult to replace, and realistically, how many more SM movies does Garfield have in him? He's not young anymore, and I think we can all agree that SM is at its best during the adolescent years.

Unfortunately he has to be a casualty of war.

 

[spider-neil]

Spider-Man is a great character but it needs plot developments to create scenario's in which the character can develop.

For me, that's a mistake. Spider-Man needs to be character driven. He needs to be motivated by his actions and the actions of others. Far too often there is happenstance and things happening because the PLOT says 'now we need this to happen'.

Spider-Man should 'want' something, the antagonist should 'want' something and this should put them on a path where they become obstacles for each other but it should all be characters based rather than simply being, 'act 1 needs a fight', 'act 2 needs the two meet for the first time', that is lazy writing and there is too much of it.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

At this moment though, it's not as if Garfield is universally hated or objectively bad is all I'm saying. Can't just dismiss a large amount of peoples opinions because they're fickle. We can only judge what people think now, not predict the future, and as of now, it's easier to find peachy comments about Garfield than not-so-peachy comments

I don't recall anyone saying Garfield was hated at all. As with any actor in a superhero role, Garfield has his fans, but it's hard to judge if it's because of his quality in the role or simply because he's the current thing.

His romance with Emma Stone (''Stonefield'') certainly helps his popularity with a certain kind of audience.

I understand what you're saying... no one out there is demanding a recast as Andrew is perfectly passable in the role, but you certainly won't hear that much of an uproar should the part get recast.

 

[LizardMan07]

I like Garfield as Spider-Man but the advantages of a Marvel reboot far outweigh the benefits of keeping Garfield on the sinking ship that is Sony's ASM. I don't think he is difficult to replace, and realistically, how many more SM movies does Garfield have in him? He's not young anymore, and I think we can all agree that SM is at its best during the adolescent years.

Unfortunately he has to be a casualty of war.

I definetly agree with this.

I like Andrew but I love Spider-Man more and the best thing for Spider-Man is to be in the MCU. Happy to throw Garfield, Webb, Arad and Pascal under the bus for it to happen too!

 

[spider-neil]

I'm in a small minority where I'd love to see a X-Men film without Wolverine.

We got that in X:FC (cameo aside) and for me X:FC is the best X-Men movie.

 

[GuestStar2004]

If Sony makes another Spider-Man it has a higher chance of being successful if Andrew is at the helm. Only Marvel stepping in justifies another reboot.

Andrew coming back certainly wouldn't hurt, infact it could be more of a benefit

But if marvel do recast the best tactic would be to do a mixture of andrew and tobys peter parker

 

[Mirals]

For me, that's a mistake. Spider-Man needs to be character driven. He needs to be motivated by his actions and the actions of others. Far too often there is happenstance and things happening because the PLOT says 'now we need this to happen'.

Spider-Man should 'want' something, the antagonist should 'want' something and this should put them on a path where they become obstacles for each other but it should all be characters based rather than simply being, 'act 1 needs a fight', 'act 2 needs the two meet for the first time', that is lazy writing and there is too much of it.

Kinda agree with you. That one of the flaws of TASM2, not enough character driven.

 

[chamber-music]

I'm in a small minority where I'd love to see a X-Men film without Wolverine.

I wouldn't mind seeing a X-Men film without Wolverine. (Not counting First Class)

i'd certainly say alot of people favour garfield more then just "lukewarm", its just a time so close to tobys peter that there was always gonna be split opinion on the character, just like if toby came back you could expect his character to not quite be accepted the same way he used too

I don't know why people would want Tobey back as Spider-Man. Tobey is almost 40 and has serious back problems. I don't think he is wants to get back into harnesses and the wire rigs again.

I feel like Maguire and Dunst were happy to be done with Spidey movies when Spidey 4 wasn't moving forward.

 

[spider-neil]

For Spider-Man's fortunes to change (from a film making perspective) the current producers have to go. That is 3 movies in a row where they have micro managed the movie. SM3. ASM. ASM2. Three movies where the producers influence loom large over the movie. Producers are always going to have 'some' influence especially given they dictate the budget but beyond monitoring the progress and keeping the budget on track their influence should end. Arad and co are too hands on and need sacking off.

 

[GuestStar2004]

i think sony wanted TASM2 to be more fun and thats why the character driven stuff was reduced to not get in the way of the other stuff going on, infact wasn't that why they got the transformers writers on board to make it more fun? i believe that was what the original idea was

 

[spider-neil]

i think sony wanted TASM2 to be more fun and thats why the character driven stuff was reduced to not get in the way of the other stuff going on, infact wasn't that why they got the transformers writers on board to make it more fun? i believe that was what the original idea was

Sony saw the success of Nolan's Batman and attempted to make that and then saw the success of Marvel's Avengers made a massive U-turn and attempted to make that instead. Short sighted and no true sense of direction.

 

[Mirals]

@GuestStar2004: Maybe you're right. That would be an explanation.

Does anyone think that the Russo's brothers directing the next Spider-Man film would be a good thing?

EDIT: If Arad and Tomalch are out, of course!

 

[spider-neil]

Things stay exactly as they current are -

Arad and co sacked -

A list director (Fincher) hired - t: