Homecoming The No One Cares About This Franchise/Give the Rights Back to Marvel Thread

[Majik1387]

Yes. He's incognito at Comic Con.

 

[spider-neil]

Sony's cunning plan to grab the Harry Potter crowd.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

He picked a good disguise
It would work better if he doesn't remove his mask for the camera

 

[Majik1387]

Spider-Man/Harry Potter crossover please?

 

[SpideyK]

WB should buy the Spidey rights. They seem to have an actor in mind for Spidey...

That's ****ing awesome.

 

[LizardMan07]

Oh BRAB, don't kid yourself that a whopping big budget means you're trying to make a quality movie. Just look at the budgets Michael Bay's horrendous Transformers movies get for example,and they try and tell me they are all about making quality moviesbecause they have budgets like that.

There's no contradiction. You just don't get that a big budget doesn't mean they're trying to make a good movie. Sorry but that's a fact.

You somehow managed to misconstrue what I said again mate.

If the film is a cash grab,and the quality is irrelevant to the equation, why spend 200 million as opposed to 25 million? The quality doesn't matter, if it's a cash grab, then you'd want to spend the least amount of money possible and make the most amount of money. A huge budget indicates an attempt to make a decent film, and I find it hillarious that all of a sudden the transformers example is relevant, when we've spent the last 3 months in the TASM2 BO threads dismissing the TF example as a one time thing... Funny how an example becomes more relevant when it suits the arguement, hey? TF is it's own brand, they don't aim to make a decent story, they aim to ham up the CGIand action scenes, that's still an attempt at making a good film in that aspect regardless. No big company delibrately makes a poor overall movie, there's always an attempt to make it enjoyable, as people watch things they enjoy. Simple business.

You're only having yourself on if you think spending 200 million on a movie means they're trying to make the best quality movie they can.There's a saying that you have to spend money to make money.

But, again, see above. A saying doesn't quantify as evidence towards your cause by the way, some say that the earth is 6,500 years old, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

If sony only spend 50M, and make 750M, then that's benficial towards their cash grabbing cause, if they want the series to be successful, they use as many of their assets as they can to hire the best personal possible to give the film the best possible chance of succeeding. Why spend 200 million on a cash grab? That's a lot of money to invest in something where the quality doesn't matter to you. It's business really, do you think the shareholders would be happy with wasting that much money on a movie? It makes more sense to me that they were trying to make an awesome movie, and missed the target. You're arguing that they intend to forgo quality for money, which is just ridiculous, as this franchise is slowly dying, and a bad movie won't help this movie franchise, which is, in essence, an asset. It's the equivalent to telling your Woolworths (Walmart in US I think) shareholders you're going to defecate in the freezer section for the next few months, just bad business.

Your overall point regarding the correlation between money spent and money earnt is rather disengenious, I'm sure I could find you a moviethat had a higher budget than other movies but made less money.

Oh Joker.

No they don't give a toss if the movie's good as long as it makes money. One of the reasons they're changing strategy is because they had loss on awful the TASM 2, and they're trying to keep up with the competitionwho's kicking their ass financially.

Saying "the TASM2: is equivalent to saying "PIN Number", just so you know. Also, Are you actually stating Sony's intricate motives as if you work there? That's an odd development, congrats on the employment though! (To be fair some of your ideas for the series are better than Avi's)

The Avengers made money because it was good. Sony's spider universe, if it wants to replicate it, must be good as well. Is a strategy change that bad? Surely S6 will make less money than TASM3, so that's an odd way to shoot for the cash. You seem to contradict yourself a lot without noticing... Odd

If they cared about making a good movie they wouldn't be wasting time and money on a spin off nobody asked for or needs. They be focusing on doing a great TASM 3.

This is just money making competition. Quality doesn't come into the equation.

Again with the "asked for or needs" fallacy. Which you NEVER ADDRESS may I add. If nobody asked for it why is it financially viable? I've already addressed the correlation between quality and money, so I won'trepeat myself. This is still, a direct contradiction.

If you want the general populace to consume your product, it has to be good, and it has to be in demand. You're arguing that sony are intentionally putting out a product that is the polar opposite of both of these. This is the absolute essence of my problem with your arguement. What you are saying goes COMPLETLY against any sane business model, it is as if you think Sony is out to hurt fans of spider-man, (and the old series) not to make money. Of course they want to make money, and we must look at the key aspects of selling your product in a crowded market to fufill this goal. What you're implying just simply is not compatible with the reality of the business, as much as you want sony to be a buch of maniacal devils, they're really just like Marvel Studios or Fox or Lionsgate, they're selling a product, and most people do that without "defecating in the freezer section" if you will.

After the quality of the last two Spider-Man movies, especially the latest one, it would be easy to believe Sony is being run by a child or a horse.

I don't know what you mean by the Tobey Maguire's faces remark, but it's probably an attempt to redirect the conversation into a Raimi one, which I am not going for.

Well, people liked Tobes right? AND quality doesn't matter. So by your very logic, a two hour long film of Toby Macguire's greatest faces would make a lot of money. No Raimi-isms at all, unless Tobes and Raimi have become joined at the hip over the past two weeks, which would no doubt hurt Tobes' acting career, so I doubt it.

But you're dead on in the copying another franchise and disregarding the quality. It's like all those slasher movies that came out after John Carpenter's classic Halloween in 1978. They all tried to duplicate the furniture of the movie; teenagers, sex, masked killer, without getting what made Halloween so special. Sony is doing the same thing. They're trying to duplicate the furniture of The Avengers by having a big budget, lots of super powered characters, action and sfx, without realizing what made Avengers special. It made the audiences care about their heroes by giving them all their own movies. Developing them as characters, getting them a fan base, and then putting them together in a movie.

Ah, the 70's, to reminice. I've kind of experienced this before in actual real life debates with real stakes and real people, the old throwback to the old times, really changes the face of a debate. I liked it, I wasn't even alive in the 80's, but damn, I felt serene for those few moments as I read that paragraph about holloween. Ah to dream.

Actually heading to the point you're making now. Maybe the reason it's so different to the avengers is that, gasp, their not actually going for the whole "Avengers" thing? Just ponder it, I'm not trying to convince you that that's neccesarily true, but maybe, just maybe, they're actually trying for something different. Other than a team of characters, the two concepts do begin to differentiate thematically from there.. Oh and forgot to mention, "Big budget, SFX and Action" are all central facets of superhero movies, the only extra thing is the multiple heroes bit.

Sony is so desperate they're taking six super villains, several of whichwere coldly received in the TASM movies, and another three that we have not even seen yet, throwing them into their own spin off,probably completely rewriting them into something they're not, just for the sake of having an ensemble movie like Marvel.

Realised I missed this. Now you're looking into the crystal ball, what if all six villians are Joker-Like in quality? Will you change your username to "Sinister Six"?

First of all no need for swearing. Second how you'd revitalize thefranchise is irrelevant. This is nothing to do with what you or I would do. Third if Sony were showing they care about quality they wouldn't have used TASM 2 as a cluster mess of under developed sloppily written characters just so they could have a super villain spin off, which I repeat again there was zero demand for. They want it because they think it will make them Avengers like mega bucks.

If that's Sony caring about quality then I'm Mother Theresa.

Mother Theresa enjoyed people in pain, so that's an odd analogy...

First of all, it's time to quote some posts where you did the exact same thing because I'm not a huge fan of hypocrites.

**** is right

Oh woopsey daisys, we have a winner! No swearing!

Anyway now we're away from the ad hominem stuff, onto the actual point! Secondly, I think considering you think the franchise is being dragged down by the S6 film, I'm allowed to present an alternate viewpoint, but hey, whatever, let's streamline the discussion, I'm all for that. Thirdly, (don't know why we're using numbers at least 3 paragraphs in) that's not an indication that they intended to make the film "bad", and the film wasn't a "flop", in fact, it's one of the highest rated rotten CBM's out there!! (What an achievement!!)

I think Sony deliberately messed with the movie to make it more financially rewarding, so they could set up their expansive universe and spin off movies. Which has nothing to do with quality. It's about money.

Or if they had been really smart they wouldn't have even gone the Sinister Six way and just done each Spider-Man movie as it comes, and used a villain or villains that are actually necessary and serve the theme and plot of each movie well, rather than being rail roaded in so they will ready for a spin off movie.

Or, they messed with the movie as they, gasps, thought it was better for the creative direction of the franchise? Why do you think sony is hellbent on shooting themselves in the foot? They, unlike you, actually want Sony Pictures to succeed, you have to view it from a viewpoint that isn't your own.

M-Maybe, please don't hurt me, the S6 will actually be good and create 6 Joker-esque villians to be heartily used across Spider-Man films for the next 10 years? Maybe, without being bogged down by villain develpment, we can focus on the thematic rift between PP and Generic Oscorp Weapon 4, maybe S6 is actually a good idea.

I think you're implying that Sony are actually intent on making the film poor, a film that nobody is interested in no less, in an attempt to make money. Who does that? Really, who does that? Can you not see how that sounds just a little backwards? That's just poor business, no matter how you look at it...

Hiring Drew Goddard does not mean they are looking for quality at all. He's like Marc Webb. He's a guy who's directed like what one movie? He's not a big name director. He'll be easy to control and manipulate and do the movie what ever way they want without any arguments.

Cloverfield, Cabin in the woods, Daredevil netflix series by none other than MARVEL STUDIOS, the saints, they only make films out of the goodness of their hearts!! *Harp Plays, Angels sing, Toby Weeps*

Seriously though, any director is a jump from webb in a film about villians as Webb just doesn't do villians. I know mentioning revitalising the series is banned under galactic law but I'd like to mention really quietly so nobody hears that some good villians would be really nice for the franchise.....

Exactly

Stop right there darl, that post has nothing to do with your original viewpoint, you can agree with that too, but please, it's nowhere near what you're implying, so if you'd rather go with that, which is more reasonable, probably good to concede the other point is just, as the brits say, hogwash.

Done, sweet baby Jesus that took a long time, but I think I covered everything relatively well, please no nitpicking, attack the point as a whole, debate the point not the picks.

TL;DR

Sony not Devil, Sony Make money, Good Make Money, Sony not make bad, Sony Like Money, So Sony Make good.​

 

[Oscorp]

Daniel Radcliffe, based on interviews and word of mouth, is one of my favourite celebrities of these days. Laid back, great sense of humour, down to Earth etc. Everything that would make a great Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Especially since he kinda has the Peter Parker looks down.

But...he's unfortunately a pretty terrible actor IMO, so no. Awesome picture though.

 

[LizardMan07]

I mean, he handled a wand real good in that Harry Potter franchise...

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Use the force Harry.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

He touched his wand while having fantasizing about Draco Malfoy

 

[The Joker]

You somehow managed to misconstrue what I said again mate.

Then you're not making your viewpoint very clear, mate.

If the film is a cash grab,and the quality is irrelevant to the equation, why spend 200 million as opposed to 25 million?

Because to make a big dazzling sfx movie based on a Marvel superhero you have to pour the money into it. Can you imagine a 25 million dollar budgeted Spider-Man movie lol.

Why do you think they pour money into movies like Bay's big mega fx Transformers movies and they come out making ridiculous amounts of money. You can't make spectacle movies like Spider-Man, Avengers, Transformers etc without big budgets.

The quality doesn't matter, if it's a cash grab, then you'd want to spend the least amount of money possible and make the most amount of money. A huge budget indicates an attempt to make a decent film, and I find it hillarious that all of a sudden the transformers example is relevant, when we've spent the last 3 months in the TASM2 BO threads dismissing the TF example as a one time thing. Funny how an example becomes more relevant when it suits the arguement, hey

Who is this we? I haven't dismissed TF as an example, so don't lump me in on who ever has been dismissing it.

TF is it's own brand, they don't aim to make a decent story, they aim to ham up the CGIand action scenes, that's still an attempt at making a good film in that aspect regardless. No big company delibrately makes a poor overall movie, there's always an attempt to make it enjoyable, as people watch things they enjoy. Simple business.

I'm never said they are deliberately trying to make a bad movie. I said they don't care about quality, they primarily care about keeping up with the competition and making the mega bucks. That's not trying to make a bad movie, that's trying to make a movie that will make money.

But, again, see above. A saying doesn't quantify as evidence towards your cause by the way, some say that the earth is 6,500 years old, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Of course it qualifies as evidence. You can't make a competent Spider-Man movie with all the dazzling effects and action sequences etc on a small budget. It just cannot be done.

If sony only spend 50M, and make 750M, then that's benficial towards their cash grabbing cause, if they want the series to be successful, they use as many of their assets as they can to hire the best personal possible to give the film the best possible chance of succeeding. Why spend 200 million on a cash grab? That's a lot of money to invest in something where the quality doesn't matter to you. It's business really, do you think the shareholders would be happy with wasting that much money on a movie? It makes more sense to me that they were trying to make an awesome movie, and missed the target. You're arguing that they intend to forgo quality for money, which is just ridiculous, as this franchise is slowly dying, and a bad movie won't help this movie franchise, which is, in essence, an asset. It's the equivalent to telling your Woolworths (Walmart in US I think) shareholders you're going to defecate in the freezer section for the next few months, just bad business.

BRAB, only a company without a clue on how to make a superhero movie would have a budget of 50 million in this day and age. Sony is not that stupid. No movie company is.

Sony is currently in a state of trouble because their movies have not been doing as well as expected;

http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/2014/07/26/a-look-at-sony-pictures-entertainments-woes/

http://nikkifinke.com/behind-scenes-sony-pictures-part-one/

And this Sinister Six spin off is just a desperate attempt to make more money by copying the Avengers formula.

Your overall point regarding the correlation between money spent and money earnt is rather disengenious

No it's not.

I'm sure I could find you a moviethat had a higher budget than other movies but made less money.

Of course you could. Cutthroat Island is the biggest box office loss in terms of budget to box office takings as far as I know, unless another movie has trumped it since.

What would that prove?

Oh Joker.

Oh BRAB.

Saying "the TASM2: is equivalent to saying "PIN Number", just so you know.

Says who? You? Practically the whole forum does it. Nobody cares to spell out the whole long winded name every time they make a post. Like most people abbreviate The Dark Knight as TDK.

Or are you talking about putting 'the' before it? Either way so what? Are you getting sensitive now making remarks like this that have nothing to do with anything just because the discussion is not going your way or something?

Also, Are you actually stating Sony's intricate motives as if you work there? That's an odd development, congrats on the employment though! (To be fair some of your ideas for the series are better than Avi's)

I state their motives as they're obvious based on the under performance of their TASM movies, and several other movies they've released lately, and how the competition is kicking their assess with their expansive movie universe strategy. Not to mention the strategy of doing it when there has been no demand for a movie like this in the Spider-Man franchise. This is their half baked idea to make their money back.

The Avengers made money because it was good. Sony's spider universe, if it wants to replicate it, must be good as well. Is a strategy change that bad? Surely S6 will make less money than TASM3, so that's an odd way to shoot for the cash. You seem to contradict yourself a lot without noticing... Odd

What contradiction? There is no contradiction. Yes the strategy is bad. There is no basis here for a S6 movie. If they want to make a great Spider-Man based movie that will make money they make a great Spider-Man movie. Sam Raimi proved that you can make great Spider-Man movies that fans, audiences and critics will love, and will make great movie.

He didn't need to cram six villains into a movie in some silly needless spin off.

Again with the "asked for or needs" fallacy. Which you NEVER ADDRESS may I add. If nobody asked for it why is it financially viable? I've already addressed the correlation between quality and money, so I won'trepeat myself. This is still, a direct contradiction.

What's to address with that remark? When studios make spin offs for characters it's usually because fans have wanted it, like the Venom one, or Wolverine.

Why they think the fans or general audiences wanted a Sinister Six movie I don't know. The dead reaction to when it was announced is further proof that practically nobody is enthusiastic at the idea of it because again nobody wants it.

You keep blabbing about contradiction but there's no contradiction. It's not financially viable to do this. They think doing a super powered character ensemble movie is what audiences want just because The Avengers was so successful.

If you want the general populace to consume your product, it has to be good, and it has to be in demand. You're arguing that sony are intentionally putting out a product that is the polar opposite of both of these. This is the absolute essence of my problem with your arguement. What you are saying goes COMPLETLY against any sane business model, it is as if you think Sony is out to hurt fans of spider-man, (and the old series) not to make money. Of course they want to make money, and we must look at the key aspects of selling your product in a crowded market to fufill this goal. What you're implying just simply is not compatible with the reality of the business, as much as you want sony to be a buch of maniacal devils, they're really just like Marvel Studios or Fox or Lionsgate, they're selling a product, and most people do that without "defecating in the freezer section" if you will.

Oh BRAB. If you want audiences to consume your product it must be good? Oh my stars and garters, BRAB, do you live in your own alternate reality or something. So many awful movies have made a ton of money over the years without needing to be good.

For the umpteenth time I am not saying Sony is deliberately sitting down and saying hey lets make a bad movie. Never once did I say that. I said they don't care about quality, they care about making a money spinning movie. They are just trying to mimic the strategy of Marvel to make the kind of money they're making. That's not them saying lets make a bad movie, it's them not thinking about quality, just looking for a quick fix to make their money back.

Well, people liked Tobes right? AND quality doesn't matter. So by your very logic, a two hour long film of Toby Macguire's greatest faces would make a lot of money. No Raimi-isms at all, unless Tobes and Raimi have become joined at the hip over the past two weeks, which would no doubt hurt Tobes' acting career, so I doubt it.

I'm going to assume this nonsense is just stupid sarcasm on your part.

Ah, the 70's, to reminice. I've kind of experienced this before in actual real life debates with real stakes and real people, the old throwback to the old times, really changes the face of a debate. I liked it, I wasn't even alive in the 80's, but damn, I felt serene for those few moments as I read that paragraph about holloween. Ah to dream.

More stupid sarcasm, and I also notice you're unable to counteract it with a credible rebuttal.

Not surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.

It's a valid example of other movies trying to mimick a successful movie in the genre and failing.

Actually heading to the point you're making now. Maybe the reason it's so different to the avengers is that, gasp, their not actually going for the whole "Avengers" thing? Just ponder it, I'm not trying to convince you that that's neccesarily true, but maybe, just maybe, they're actually trying for something different. Other than a team of characters, the two concepts do begin to differentiate thematically from there.. Oh and forgot to mention, "Big budget, SFX and Action" are all central facets of superhero movies, the only extra thing is the multiple heroes bit.

What do you mean it's so different to the Avengers? What is? This Sinister Six spin off? Making a team of super powered characters team up in their own movie? Oh yeah what a different formula to the Avengers.

Realised I missed this. Now you're looking into the crystal ball, what if all six villians are Joker-Like in quality? Will you change your username to "Sinister Six"?

If your next reply is going to consist predominately of pathetic stupid sarcasm like this, then don't waste your time responding. It will be ignored. They're just making you look more and more desperate like you're losing the discussion completely and this is all you've got left to say just for the sake of saying something.

Mother Theresa enjoyed people in pain, so that's an odd analogy...

I'm starting to lose respect for you, BRAB. Mother Theresa is a woman and dead. She was also one of the greatest healers and saviors in history. The analogy to me being her was to stress how unlikely it was what you're saying is true.

As if you didn't know that. But no you have to get in another cheap sarcastic dig. I had no idea you were this bad as a debater.

First of all, it's time to quote some posts where you did the exact same thing because I'm not a huge fan of hypocrites.

Oh you're changing direction of the discussion now.

Oh woopsey daisys, we have a winner! No swearing!

That's not me swearing, that's me paraphrasing someone else who was swearing, and in a non angry hostile way unlike you were.

But yeah fair point, I shouldn't even have paraphrased it.

Anyway now we're away from the ad hominem stuff, onto the actual point! Secondly, I think considering you think the franchise is being dragged down by the S6 film, I'm allowed to present an alternate viewpoint, but hey, whatever, let's streamline the discussion, I'm all for that. Thirdly, (don't know why we're using numbers at least 3 paragraphs in) that's not an indication that they intended to make the film "bad", and the film wasn't a "flop", in fact, it's one of the highest rated rotten CBM's out there!! (What an achievement!!)

This franchise is already dragged down by TASM 2. This is Sony's feeble attempt at damage control by doing an Avengers like movie with a cluster of super powered characters teamed up together, and hope the audience will eat it up like they did with Avengers.

But yes, I think an S6 movie will drag it down even further for reasons already aforementioned.

Or, they messed with the movie as they, gasps, thought it was better for the creative direction of the franchise? Why do you think sony is hellbent on shooting themselves in the foot? They, unlike you, actually want Sony Pictures to succeed, you have to view it from a viewpoint that isn't your own.

Go back and re-read what I said. I think they messed with the movie to make it more financially rewarding. That's not shooting themselves in the foot to them if it makes them more money.

Second, what's with the stupid remark that I don't want Sony to succeed? I'm getting tired of your insulting snarky remarks. Of course I want them to succeed if they are making decent Spider-Man movies. But they're not, and this is reflecting back on them in disappointing box office and bad critical response.

M-Maybe, please don't hurt me, the S6 will actually be good and create 6 Joker-esque villians to be heartily used across Spider-Man films for the next 10 years? Maybe, without being bogged down by villain develpment, we can focus on the thematic rift between PP and Generic Oscorp Weapon 4, maybe S6 is actually a good idea.

Anything is possible, but the odds of that happening are practically nil. Especially with your Joker-esque villains remark, when the TASM villains we've had so far would need a complete reinvention to even come close to being on the level of quality as the Joker. Because right now they're more on par with Joel Schumacher's Batman villains.

I think you're implying that Sony are actually intent on making the film poor, a film that nobody is interested in no less, in an attempt to make money. Who does that? Really, who does that? Can you not see how that sounds just a little backwards? That's just poor business, no matter how you look at it...

Oh I'm implying it now that Sony want to make a poor movie? In your previous points you were certain I was saying Sony want to make a bad movie. I've addressed that silly accusation twice now. I don't need to repeat it a third time, because given the track record here I doubt it would be the charm.

Cloverfield, Cabin in the woods, Daredevil netflix series by none other than MARVEL STUDIOS, the saints, they only make films out of the goodness of their hearts!! *Harp Plays, Angels sing, Toby Weeps*

Your stupid sarcasm aside, Cloverfield was a critical and financial success, Cabin in the Woods was directed by Drew Goddard your S6 director and was a critical and financial success. I haven't seen the Daredevil series.

So was this smoking sarcasm some attempt to have a dig at Marvel?

Seriously though, any director is a jump from webb in a film about villians as Webb just doesn't do villians. I know mentioning revitalising the series is banned under galactic law but I'd like to mention really quietly so nobody hears that some good villians would be really nice for the franchise.....

Well one thing we agree on Webb is not cut out for doing villains. I'm assuming you mean any director being a jump from Webb is because they'd do a better job with them.

You can think of this as an attempt to revitalize the franchise with good villains if you want. But putting six of them together in a team in their own movie is blatantly obvious that it's just Avengers mimicking.

Stop right there darl, that post has nothing to do with your original viewpoint, you can agree with that too, but please, it's nowhere near what you're implying, so if you'd rather go with that, which is more reasonable, probably good to concede the other point is just, as the brits say, hogwash.

I never said it had anything to do with my original point did I? He said we were judging their intention, which is what we're doing. He said to revive Spider-man they need to put their head down and write a good script for individual movies and let that speak for itself,and not sabotage the whole movie with needless plot points and villains just because they want sinister six down the line.

I agree whole heartedly with him. So darl, you have no reason to be pulling me up on agreeing with this.

Done, sweet baby Jesus that took a long time

If you excised all the needless snark, and sarcastic remarks you made, you'd have been done in half the time.

but I think I covered everything relatively well, please no nitpicking, attack the point as a whole, debate the point not the picks.

I don't do nit picks. I address each point as it comes. If you see any of it as nit picks it's because I'm addressing a nit pick myself.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

"Give the rights to Marvel" is equivalant to "Get Nolan to direct it" or "Cast Bryan Cranston"

Lazy, lazy solution. There's ways for Sony to salvage the thing without just giving it up, because, you know, they're a charity and are just going to hand over a multi million (possibly billion) dollar franchise. It has so much potential, it really does.

Why is it a lazy solution to give the rights to Marvel? They are making terrific comic book movies. I think the weakest one you could say they've made is Iron Man 2 or Thor 2 and both of them still are better and did better than the TASM movies.

Sinister Six shows they're at least trying, they could just keep swimming where they are, but they are changing it up, S6 has the chance the revitalise the brand in ways that TASM3 couldn't, it shows Sony has ambition. This studio has done it before (SM2), they can do it again (make a good film)

I don't think doing a Sinister Six movie shows they're trying to makes things better. I think it shows they're trying to do the Marvel way with The Avengers. You know you'd think they would have learned from Spider-Man 3 that having three villains in a Spider-Man movie is a mistake, but they did it anyway and it was even worse than Spider-Man 3, but they only did it so they could have these villains for the Sinister Six.

We are judging their intention,since it is for the good of Spider-man
We just think the method they are applying in completely wrong.

To revive Spider-man they need to put their head down and write a good script for individual movies and let that speak for itself,and not sabotage the whole movie with needless polt points and villains just because they want sinister six down the line.They need to make good Spider-man movies and not get ahead of themselves with Venom and Sinister six and Black cat and God knows what else

I mean the whole advantage of Spidey being with Sony was his freedom and individuality,but with Sony going through with this half-assed attempt at a universe,why not have in in the actual MCU rather than a poor man's version of it

Agreed. If you were thinking there is a problem with a Spider-Man movie franchise then the solution is not to give six of his villains their own movie lol. You focus on the problem and that's the Spider-Man movies themselves. That idea of having a mult villain spin off is just an Avengers movie except with villains teamed up instead of heroes.

They have to include Spider-man in Sinister Six, for this movie's success, he could be a guest star.

If he's only a guest star like in it for a few minutes then I don't think that would be enough. He has to be the antagonist or it won't work I don't think.

 

[Spooderman]

Why is it a lazy solution to give the rights to Marvel? They are making terrific comic book movies. I think the weakest one you could say they've made is Iron Man 2 or Thor 2 and both of them still are better and did better than the TASM movies.

Lazy? Perhaps not. But it's definitely unlikely to happen. As long as Sony can make a quick buck off the series, they will keep making them.

And IMO IM2 was much worse than TASM1.

I don't think doing a Sinister Six movie shows they're trying to makes things better. I think it shows they're trying to do the Marvel way with The Avengers. You know you'd think they would have learned from Spider-Man 3 that having three villains in a Spider-Man movie is a mistake, but they did it anyway and it was even worse than Spider-Man 3, but they only did it so they could have these villains for the Sinister Six.

Spider-Man 3's problem wasn't too many villains. I think the villains were pretty good, and cold have worked if the script was better. There were far bigger problems like Sandman's Uncle Ben's killer retcon, Harry's amnesia, "I accidentally punch MJ, that means I'm evil".

Having more villains would mean more problems can arise, but these problems can be fixed with a good scrip. Unfortunately, I don't think the S6 movie will have a good one.

Agreed. If you were thinking there is a problem with a Spider-Man movie franchise then the solution is not to give six of his villains their own movie lol. You focus on the problem and that's the Spider-Man movies themselves. That idea of having a mult villain spin off is just an Avengers movie except with villains teamed up instead of heroes.

Honestly, I don't think S6 will hurt the franchise more than TASM3. At this rate I think they both will suck. Sure S6 will make less money, but they 'might' be able to decrease their budget if they don't chalk up the action, and use the SFX more practically. And probably get rid of the Rhino-zord tank. Nobody likes him.

If they do use good villains it could spark an interest in TASM3, and we know that Meth head and Rhino-Zord will be the only villains to be in S6. Who knows, maybe the 4 other ones will be good.



But as bad of an idea this is, I really don't think Sony will be digging itself deeper unless S6 gets terrible reviews.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Daniel Radcliffe, based on interviews and word of mouth, is one of my favourite celebrities of these days. Laid back, great sense of humour, down to Earth etc. Everything that would make a great Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Especially since he kinda has the Peter Parker looks down.

Yes...

But...he's unfortunately a pretty terrible actor IMO, so no. Awesome picture though.

Nah, he's pretty great. If you're basing his stuff of HP, all of which ranged from very, very good (think HP1-3) to fantastic (4-8), watch his other films / plays.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

If the film is a cash grab,and the quality is irrelevant to the equation, why spend 200 million as opposed to 25 million? The quality doesn't matter, if it's a cash grab, then you'd want to spend the least amount of money possible and make the most amount of money. A huge budget indicates an attempt to make a decent film, and I find it hillarious that all of a sudden the transformers example is relevant, when we've spent the last 3 months in the TASM2 BO threads dismissing the TF example as a one time thing... Funny how an example becomes more relevant when it suits the arguement, hey? TF is it's own brand, they don't aim to make a decent story, they aim to ham up the CGIand action scenes, that's still an attempt at making a good film in that aspect regardless. No big company delibrately makes a poor overall movie, there's always an attempt to make it enjoyable, as people watch things they enjoy. Simple business.

I don't think they could ever make a Spider-Man movie nowadays with a budget of 25 million. Imagine trying to do all the effects and action and the villains on a budget like that lol. It would probably look like that Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man TV show.

How come Transformers is irrelevant? Four times now they have proven they can make loads of money and not be very good.

The Avengers made money because it was good. Sony's spider universe, if it wants to replicate it, must be good as well. Is a strategy change that bad? Surely S6 will make less money than TASM3, so that's an odd way to shoot for the cash. You seem to contradict yourself a lot without noticing... Odd

I think it is bad to try and copy the Avengers because they haven't gone about it the way Marvel did. Iron Man 1 and 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America....they were all movies that they did with their Avengers team before they did The Avengers movie. They made all the characters great and popular and developed.

Sony didn't do that with the villains of the Sinister Six. We haven't even seen all of them yet even lol, and the ones we have seen are not very good or liked much.

If you want the general populace to consume your product, it has to be good, and it has to be in demand. You're arguing that sony are intentionally putting out a product that is the polar opposite of both of these. This is the absolute essence of my problem with your arguement. What you are saying goes COMPLETLY against any sane business model, it is as if you think Sony is out to hurt fans of spider-man, (and the old series) not to make money. Of course they want to make money, and we must look at the key aspects of selling your product in a crowded market to fufill this goal. What you're implying just simply is not compatible with the reality of the business, as much as you want sony to be a buch of maniacal devils, they're really just like Marvel Studios or Fox or Lionsgate, they're selling a product, and most people do that without "defecating in the freezer section" if you will.

http://www.sofasandsectionals.com/so-bad-its-good

See you don't need a good movie product for it to make money.

Actually heading to the point you're making now. Maybe the reason it's so different to the avengers is that, gasp, their not actually going for the whole "Avengers" thing? Just ponder it, I'm not trying to convince you that that's neccesarily true, but maybe, just maybe, they're actually trying for something different. Other than a team of characters, the two concepts do begin to differentiate thematically from there.. Oh and forgot to mention, "Big budget, SFX and Action" are all central facets of superhero movies, the only extra thing is the multiple heroes bit.

It looks like the same type of movie as The Avengers to me. This will be a movie about a team of characters with super powers who team up to take down a common enemy, their team has a name. The only difference is these are technically bad guys but Mr. Avi Arad claims there is no such thing as a true villain which is stupid because there is. And he says the theme is redemption which means he's probably going to make them anti heroes.

Anyway now we're away from the ad hominem stuff, onto the actual point! Secondly, I think considering you think the franchise is being dragged down by the S6 film, I'm allowed to present an alternate viewpoint, but hey, whatever, let's streamline the discussion, I'm all for that. Thirdly, (don't know why we're using numbers at least 3 paragraphs in) that's not an indication that they intended to make the film "bad", and the film wasn't a "flop", in fact, it's one of the highest rated rotten CBM's out there!! (What an achievement!!)

It's not an achievement for a bad movie to make money. Like I showed you it happens all the time. I think an S6 movie will drag the franchise down more, like Wolverine Origins did after X-3 except this one will probably be worse.

Or, they messed with the movie as they, gasps, thought it was better for the creative direction of the franchise? Why do you think sony is hellbent on shooting themselves in the foot? They, unlike you, actually want Sony Pictures to succeed, you have to view it from a viewpoint that isn't your own.

The last time Sony interfered with a Spider-Man movie was Spider-Man 3, and look how that turned out. Why would they interfere again unless they were happy that Spider-Man 3 made the most money out of Raimi's trilogy and they probably think the changes they were forcing into TASM 2 was going to make them more money again like that.

I don't think they care that most saw Spider-Man 3 as a step down from the previous two movies because they clashed with Sam Raimi again about how to do Spider-Man 4, and so he walked away. They should have just left him alone.

Cloverfield, Cabin in the woods, Daredevil netflix series by none other than MARVEL STUDIOS, the saints, they only make films out of the goodness of their hearts!! *Harp Plays, Angels sing, Toby Weeps*

I don't understand what's wrong with all of those? Daredevil series isn't out yet either.

Seriously though, any director is a jump from webb in a film about villians as Webb just doesn't do villians. I know mentioning revitalising the series is banned under galactic law but I'd like to mention really quietly so nobody hears that some good villians would be really nice for the franchise.....

They should just hire a new director for TASM 3 instead of doing a spin off of the Sinister Six if they think Webb is not good at doing villains lol.

Lazy? Perhaps not. But it's definitely unlikely to happen. As long as Sony can make a quick buck off the series, they will keep making them.

I know it's unlikely, but it would be a better solution than leaving Spider-Man in the hands of Sony and Mr. Avi 'There's no such thing as a real villain' Arad.

Spider-Man 3's problem wasn't too many villains. I think the villains were pretty good, and cold have worked if the script was better. There were far bigger problems like Sandman's Uncle Ben's killer retcon, Harry's amnesia, "I accidentally punch MJ, that means I'm evil".

Spider-Man 3's problem was too many villains. There was too much story with the symbiote and Venom. Harry was done well because he was there since movie 1. But the other two were lacking because there was too much going on to do them fully properly.

But they still came off ok and better than TASM 2's villains.

Having more villains would mean more problems can arise, but these problems can be fixed with a good scrip. Unfortunately, I don't think the S6 movie will have a good one.

Agreed about S6 most likely not having one. But I think if you're having multiple villains then the script needs to be rewritten, and Spider-Man 3 was backed into a corner because they had Peter and MJ, Harry's story, Sandman, Venom, and Gwen Stacy. Sam Raimi had to handle all of that in one movie.

Honestly, I don't think S6 will hurt the franchise more than TASM3. At this rate I think they both will suck. Sure S6 will make less money, but they 'might' be able to decrease their budget if they don't chalk up the action, and use the SFX more practically. And probably get rid of the Rhino-zord tank. Nobody likes him.

Agreed, but the S6 could be like the Catwoman movie of the franchise lol.

If they do use good villains it could spark an interest in TASM3, and we know that Meth head and Rhino-Zord will be the only villains to be in S6. Who knows, maybe the 4 other ones will be good.

Agreed lol. See these villains are not liked much, and the others we haven't seen. I don't know why they think anyone would want this S6 movie. There's no point. I wish they would just focus on TASM 3 or reboot again.

But as bad of an idea this is, I really don't think Sony will be digging itself deeper unless S6 gets terrible reviews.

It probably will. TASM 2 did. Worse than Spider-Man 3. At least Spider-Man 3 kept a fresh rating.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

And IMO IM2 was much worse than TASM1.

IM2, while nothing to write home about, is entertaining, and way more watchable than anything in TASM1. Much less worse writing too.

"I accidentally punch MJ, that means I'm evil".

Actually it was moreso the culmination / turning point for Peter, realizing all the terrible things he had done prior to that.

But as bad of an idea this is, I really don't think Sony will be digging itself deeper unless S6 gets terrible reviews.

Which is extremely likely

 

[Spooderman]

Spider-Man 3's problem was too many villains. There was too much story with the symbiote and Venom. Harry was done well because he was there since movie 1. But the other two were lacking because there was too much going on to do them fully properly.

But they still came off ok and better than TASM 2's villains.

I think they were developed fully. We know who Sandman is, he's a man who turned to crime to pay for his daughter's illness who got into a freak accident that gave him powers, which he uses to commit his crimes. Eddie Brock is a rival to Peter who is a smug idiot who will do anything to get his way, which ended up biting him in the arse, but he's too full of himself to take responsibility. I think the most underdeveloped part was the team-up. It kind of happened out of nowhere, and needed further explanation.

Agreed, but the S6 could be like the Catwoman movie of the franchise lol.

Lol, that would suck.

Agreed lol. See these villains are not liked much, and the others we haven't seen. I don't know why they think anyone would want this S6 movie. There's no point. I wish they would just focus on TASM 3 or reboot again.

Well, I'd rather see a good S6 film, than the Amazing Floppy Haired Hipster *****e 3.

If one of the villains in the film is done well, it could captivate the audience. For example, if Doc Ock is portrayed as well as he was in SM2, and was as big of a character as Methhead, it might be good enough to help the franchise. Plus, they if they get even one or two villains right, the audience reaction will tell them to use that villain for TAFHHD3

It probably will. TASM 2 did. Worse than Spider-Man 3. At least Spider-Man 3 kept a fresh rating.

Well, if it gets 45+% RT score then it will still good enough to not destroy the franchise. I doubt TASM3 would get significantly better reviews if it came out in 2016. Plus a sucky S6 film wouldn't damage the Spider-man franchise as much as a sucky film about Spider-man.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Even in Raimi's pitch on Spidey 3, he had Sandman and Harry but had Vulture. I really wonder how much of a difference the film would have been if they took out venom and kept Vulture. Seems kind of like a downgrade due to how big Venom is but it makes you wonder.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

BRAB,don't listen to Joker.

You will be here typing all day.

 

[Hobgoblin]

If you guys want to argue endlessly, feel free to do it in the Lounge.